
.5 
A 2 



r>. .. ■ I 



LX)3X-^I> history 

^ OF THE . 

^-^^'^ CONTROVERSY 



UNIVESSITY OP THE CITY OF NEW-YORK; 



WITH ORIGINAL DOCUMENTS 



APPENDIX. 



BY THE PROFESSORS OF THE 
FACULTY OF SCIENCE AND LETTERS, 



N E W - Y O R K : 

PRINTED AND PUBLISHED BY 

JOHN S. TAYLOR, 

PUBLISHER AND BOOKSELLER, 

BRICK CHURCH CHAPEL. 
1838. 



% 



^ 



^\< 



V 



. h 



itiir?7 YeRE PUBL. MBK. 

VA EXCHANGE. 



HISTORY 




or THE 



CONTROVERSY 



IK THB 



UNIVERSITY OF THE CITY OF NEW-YORK. 



The University of the City of New York had its origin in the 
counsels of a number of individuals. It was the conception of 
no one man, or if the conception of one man, the late Rev. Dr. 
GuNN is entitled to that honor. Its system of instruction as 
full formed and determined vv^as the result of mature delibera- 
tion and enlightened and laborious discussion on the part of a 
convention, composed of the representatives of literary corpora- 
tions and other of the most distinguished Literati and patrons of 
learning in the City and the State. 

The Institution was first presented to the public in 1830 as a 
** University established on a liberal and extensive foundation ;" 
one which should " extend the benefits of education in greater 
abundance and variety" than were to be enjoyed in any institu- 
tion previously established ; and it was on these " terms and con- 
ditions" that " the patronage and subscriptions of the public were 
solicited" to " this great enterprise." 

From all the movements at this period, and the published doc- 
uments, it is evident there was no ordinary degree of enthusiasm 
awakened; public expectation was ripe, and public liberality 
stood ready. So early as July, 1830, " the committee on sub- 



* CONTROVERSY 

scriptions reported the amount now subscribed to exceed the sum 
of $100,000." 

In 1831 Dr. Mathews was appointed Chancellor ; notwith- 
standing all that is claimed on account of his efforts and influence 
it will appear from the following statement, that his connection 
with the University, as Chancellor and otherwise, has proved the 
fruitful source of embarrassments and convulsions : 

1. In consequence of the appointment of Dr. Mathews to 
the Chancellorship, many individuals of high standing and influ- 
ence, withdrew immediately, or soon after it took place, from all 
connection with the institution. The objections urged against 
him related to his personal qualifications for the' office, and a 
character he had acquired while connected with the Theological 
Seminary, over which the late learned and revered Dr. Mason pre- 
sided, as well as in ofl&ces and relations since sustained. The 
Chancellor has indeed attempted to explain this early defection 
by representing it as the result of a disappointed and baffled infi" 
del movement to prevent the establishment of the institution under 
Christian auspices ! Nothing more would be necessary than to 
give the names of these men to prove the falsehood of the allega- 
tion. 

2. On account of his appointment many of the original sub- 
scribers refused to pay their subscriptions, and ever since, the 
subscriptions have been almost wholly confined to his " family, 
relations, and personal friends." (See Gen. Tallmadge's state- 
ment to the public, dated Oct. 1st.) In this great and wealthy 
city, during eight years, and that too for the most part a season of 
stupenduous and unparalleled prosperity, when objects of public 
interest, both literary and religious, have received the most mu- 
nificent donations, there have been collected for the University, 
only $82,530, including $3,085 interest which accumulated upon 
a part of this sum before it was applied. Of this, $53,355 were 
paid in previous to September, 1833, and only $26,000 have been 
paid in during the five years which have since transpired, al- 
though within one year of the whole time that the University has 
been in operation. The original subscriptions and collections 
were efl'ected through the agency of Dr. Mathews and others. — 
Since the organization of the University he is well known and is 



t'lf THE UNIVERSITY, 9 

acknowledgei^ to hate been chief, if not sole, financier and agent. 
(See Gen. Tallmadge's statement to the public, dated Oct. 1st.) 
It appears from the above, that a fair dawn was suddenly over- 
clouded, and a sad check given to public liberality. All the mo- 
nies collected do not amount to the original subscription of 1830. 
Either Dr. MatheM''s has obtained no new subscriptions since his 
appointment to the Chancellorship, or he has been mournfully 
unsuccessful in collecting the $42,570 which remained due, after 
deducting $7,050 which subscribers refused to pay upon the origi- 
nal subscription, Sept. 3d. 1833, according to the report of a 
committee of the council made at that time. This sum of $42,570 
is made up in whole or in part of the alledged nominal subscrip- 
tions. [Appendix A.] 

3. Ambition, enterprise, activity and management will be 
generally conceded to Dr. Mathews. " It is understood to have 
been a condition of the original subscription to the funds of the 
University, that $100,000 must be subscribed before any subscrip- 
tion would be payable." The nominal subscription made up the 
stipulated amount and the collections were begun. Upon these 
subscriptions, doubtful and inadequate, and upon collections still 
more inadequate, Dr. Mathews made the purchase of a lot of 
ground for $40,000, and succeeded in erecting and completing a 
large and magnificent building, " an admitted ornament to the 
city." As the capital upon which he based his operations was 
limited, he had to enter upon a system of laborious and ingenious 
financiering. This system, however ingenious in its conception, 
and however laboriously and perseveringly conducted, as might 
have been expected, has been attended throughout with mortifying 
and discreditable circumstances, and has, in the end, proved a 
signal failure. Various financial artifices have been employed — 
money has been borrowed to pay money borrowed — pledges have 
been unredeemed — promises and engagements unfulfilled — and 
consequently credit ruined ; and a debt created after paying out 
the $82,530, amounting to $175,000 — of which $110,000 is secu- 
red by mortgages on the building and the individual bonds of se- 
veral trustees ; and $65,000 "is a floating debt, due in small sums 
to meehanics and others, who are urgently pressing their claims." 



CONTROVERSY 

It is not a matter of surprise if Dr. Mathews, (as we are in- 
formed is the case,) should, under the heavy demands made upon 
him as the fiscal agent of the University and the perplexities in 
which rash and ambitious undertakings involved him, have been 
compelled to assume personal liabilities, or to make actual advan- 
ces to the amount of several thousand dollars. But if his accounts 
do now shew him in advance to the University how can the truth 
of this be confirmed while the subscription books are not pro- 
duced, and, as he affirms, are lost 1 It ought to be mentioned 
too, in connection with this, that in order to secure aid and sub- 
scriptions, the Chancellor has misrepresented on various occa- 
sions the financial condition of the University. [Appendix B. 
and C] It has been also a favorite mode with him to obtain sub- 
scriptions as scholarships, which were immediately invested in 
the building, where they are incapable of being recognised by 
their founders, yield no determinable income, and admit only of a 
general and loose application. [Appendix D.] 

4. For the interior of the institution in the form of literary 
and scientific material and Professors' salaries his exertions have 
been feeble and his provisions wretchedly inadequate. There 
have been paid from the treasury of the University for the library 
$300 ; subscriptions and donations in addition have been obtained 
for the library, principally through the agency of the Professors, 
making the whole amount appropriated to this purpose $4127. — 
The expenditures for Philosophical apparatus amount to$5836,30. 
The highest salaries paid to Professors (with the exception of 
one year and a half when they were $1800) have been $1500 
each to four of them, $1000 each to two of them, and $300 to 
one of them. This enumeration does not include the Professor- 
ship of the evidence of revealed religion, which is endowed.— 
When the engagements of the Professors with the University 
were formed they were given to understand by the Chancellor 
that the salaries contemplated to be paid them eventually would 
not be less than $2300, and that their confessedly inadequate 
compensation was only a temporary affair, rendered necessary by 
present exigencies of the institution. Inadequate as the salaries 
were acknowledged to be, they were not always punctually paid ; 



IN THE UNIVERSITY. / 

and during the last two years they have been paid irregularly, at 
long intervals, and in small sums, occasioning great embarrass- 
ment to most of the Professors. 

5. In his official capacity his deficiencies have been many, 
and his influence far from salutary or even harmless. 

First. — As the organ of communication between the Faculty 
and the Council he has used his influence to prevent that free, 
confidential, and cordial intercommunication which ought to, and 
naturally would exist between two bodies so nearly related by a 
community of views, purposes and interests ; and has discouraged 
the faculty, from making a free communication to the Council of 
their circumstances, remarking both to the whole body, and to 
individual Professors, that there were men in the Council who 
could not be trusted with these details, and who would take an 
opportunity from the disclosure to inflict injury upon the Univer- 
sity. 

Secondly. — As the Executive Head of the Institution he has 
weakened discipline, by undignified demeanor ; by inefficiency in 
executing the decisions of the Faculty, or by positively thwarting 
and acting counter to them ; and by introducing and urging mea- 
sures rashly and without taking due counsel, and then being redu- 
ced to the necessity of reconsidering and retracing his steps, under 
circumstances incompatible with the authority and influence of him- 
self and the Faculty, as can be made to appear from the minutes 
of the Faculty, as well as from their testimony. 

Thirdly. — In his intercourse with the Faculty, he has habitually 
developed himself as a man incapable of appreciating the high 
aims and interests of Literature, and as more intent upon gorgeous 
embellishments, vain parade and mere efiect, than upon building 
up solidly and wisely an institution of learning. 

Fourthly. — The whole Faculty of Science and Letters, inclu- 
ding Professor Mason, have in free and frequent communications 
with each other, expressed the painful and solemn conviction from 
their daily intercourse with Dr. Mathews, as well as from facts 
which have come to them from other sources, that he is a man 
guilty of duplicity, prevarication and falsehood, and seven of them 
at least have expressed their readiness to testify to the same, and 



O CONTROVERST 

have affirmed their ability to bring forward th© testimony of many 
respectable individuals to the same end. 

6. The Institution has been twice convulsed in six years, by 
explosions with bodies of the Professors, besides individual dif- 
ficulties, arising from alledged misconduct on the part of Dr. Ma- 
thews. 

At the beginning of the second year three Professors resigned, 
and made an exposition to the public in a pamphlet. Soon after 
another Professor and a Lecturer on History resigned. More re- 
cently two Professors of Modern Languages resigned, all on ac- 
count of dissatisfaction with the Chancellor. 

The last explosion is that which has for some time claimed 
a portion of public attention. The affair comes up under the fol- 
lowing aspect — seven Professors maldng up with one exception, 
th© entire corps of undergraduate Instructors, and the body to 
whom was committed the discipline of the Institution, have either 
legally or illegally been ejected from the duties of their Professor- 
ships. The Council under the hand of their President affirm, 
that this ejection was not originally intended as a direct movement, 
but was merely the necessary consequence of a system of re- 
trenchment, which had become necessary from the embarrassed 
condition of the University, and that the twice repeated act of 
ejection was the consequence of the non-submission on the part 
of the Professors, to the preceding acts. The Professors rejoin that 
this ejection was made at the very time, and in the very face of 
an attempt, on their part, to bring on before the whole Council, 
an investigation into the affairs of the Institution, in connection 
with the conduct and character of the Chancellor, Dr. Mathews, 
and that the ejection itself was intended as a counter movement 
in order to relieve Dr. Mathews from the investigation asked. 
The Council reply to this, that the charges were brought forward 
as a counter movement to the scheme of retrenchment, and in evi- 
dence of this state, that the movement for an investigation was 
subsequent to the scheme of retrenchment. They also state, that 
every reasonable opportunity was offered to the Professors for 
bringing forward their charges, in referring'^them with their char- 
ges to a Committee, of which John Lorimer Grahapi, Esq. was 



INTHEUNIVERSITT. V 

Chairman. Upon this issue between the majority of the Council 
and the seven Professors, it may be remarked — 

First. — It does not seem reasonable that the movement for an 
investigation was a counter movement to the retrenchment scheme, 
because it could not prevent the retrenchment in any event, ari- 
sing from the investigation. Retrenchment was still possible after 
the decision of the question between the Chancellor and the Pro- 
fessors. But it does seem reasonable that the retrenchment 
scheme was got up to stifle the investigation, because after the 
Professors by its operation should be removed from their Depart- 
ments, they could no longer claim the right or privilege of appear- 
ing in any way in the Court of the Council. 

Secondly. — The Professors had no reason to apprehend that such 
a scheme would go into effect. As a retrenchment it seemed too 
trifling to be resorted to by grave and considerate men, as an ex- 
pedient for relieving the immense embarrassments of the Univer- 
sity — and was regarded only as one of the many idle and ineff*ec- 
tual schemes of Dr. Matthews. When he spoke of it to any Pro- 
fessor, he was always careful fo represent to him that his de- 
partment was not aimed at in the contemplated invasion. To Pro- 
fessors Patton, Tappan and Proudfit, he had particularly given 
these assurances, and to Professor Tappati he made application in 
the month of May last, to undertake some additional instruction, 
and received for reply that Professor T. would resume the charge 
of the Belles Lettres Department.* 



* Professor Tappan had the entire charge of this department in 
connection with his own during four years, and the charge of the 
two higher classes one year more. When Mr. Mason was men- 
tioned to the Board of the Faculty as about to be elected a Profes- 
sor, the Chancellor stated positively that he was to be confined to 
his endowment for compensation. Not long after, the Chancellor 
requested Professor Tappan to give up the charge of the lower 
classes in Belles Lettres to Professor Mason, at the same time sta- 
ting that Professor Mason would be occupied in his own department 
only two or three months in the year, and Avas desirous of addi- 
tional employment, but that under the proposed addition to his la- 
bors he was still to be confined strictly to his endowment. Upon 
this stipulation Professor T. yielded up at once the two classes, 
2 



10 CONTROVERSY 

When the Professors were informed soon after the meeting of 
CQuncil on the 26th of July, that resolutions had been offered 
by Dr. Mathews, proposing a reduction of the departments, it 
scarcely drew any notice or elicited any remark. ThQ scheme 
was not understood as effecting the abolishment of the old and the 
establishment of new departments. The possibility of such a 
measure was not dreamed of until it was done Aug. 30th. The 
Professors always believed their offices to be on a more certain 
tenure, nor did they apprehend that there were men in the Coun- 
cil who could undertake measures so rash and violent. 
They were confirmed in these sentiments too by the able and lu- 
cid Report of the Finance Committee, made on the 5th of June 
last. This Committee most decidedly stated their conviction that 
" the expenses of instruction could not be further reduced without 
ruinous consequences ; that the salaries were already fixed at the 
lowest rate, for which the services of competent men could be en- 
gaged. That should one of the Professors be dispensed with, the 
diminution of expense created would be inconsiderable compared 
with the remaining deficit. That if an increase should take place 
in the fees of tuition, an increase of expenditure for the purposes 
of instruction might be contemplated — but that no diminution in 
that respect could be consistent with the liberal plan of the insti- 
tution, and the expectation of the public." 

Thirdly. — The tactics charged upon the Professors by their op- 
ponents cannot be shown to be in accordance with the character, 
course of life andhabits of the Professors. But the tactics chargedby 
the Professors upon the Rev. Dr. Matthews, the Hon. James Tall- 
madge, and John Lorimer Graham, Esq. cannot be shown to be 
inconsistent wdth their character, course of life and habits. 



and the next year the whole department of Belles Lettres, to Pro- 
fessor Mason, It appeared, however, afterwards, that at this very 
time the Chancellor had been making different representations 
to Professor Mason, and had actually added $600 per annum to 
his salary, for less instruction than Professor Tappan had given 
in this department, and at a compensation amounting to only $140 
per annum. 



IN THE UNIVERSITY. 11 

Fourthly. — The refusal of the Professors to come before the 
Committee with their charges, can at least be palliated and excu- 
sed imder all the circumstances of the case, as hereafter given in 
detail. But it is impossible on any ground to justify the refusal to 
conduct an investigation before the whole body of the Council? 
and the cutting off the Professors while asking such an investiga- 
tion. The Professors refused to appear before the Committee only 
to claim the privilege of appearing before the Council. By this 
they could gain no undue advantage over an adversary — it was 
fair, honorable and equitable for all parties. On the other hand by 
dismissing the Professors without the investigation, the authors 
of the measure clearly exposed themselves to the imputation of 
chicanery and injustice, for, whatever they may have intended, 
they did in fact smother the charges to the full extent of their power- 

Fifthly. — The question as to which party belongs the priority 
of attack, is a trivial one with respect to the Professors, if the 
charges they bring are grave and well sustained. That they are 
grave is already apparent from the statements of this paper, and 
that they can be well sustained the Professors do not entertain a 
doubt. But in order to satisfy the most querulous on this subject, 
as well as on all the matters relating to the present controversy, 
we shall now proceed to give a documentary history of the whole 
affair. 

The unfavorable impressions of the Professors respecting Dr. 
Mathews, are not of recent date. For years they have been oppres- 
sed by a feeling which if expressed in general terms, would be 
called a want of confidence. 

From the duplicity and prevarication they had experienced in 
their intercourse with him, their minds had gradually grown into a 
hahit of painful distrust, before any explosion took place. They 
struggled, by charitable constructions to relieve their own minds, 
and by forbearance to prevent collisions. In looking at the past 
we are astonished at what what we have endured. It is not pos- 
sible to present the circumstantial history of an every-day inter- 
course through several years — yet it is in this every-day inter- 
course that the strong and decided impression of a man's character 
is received. In a concentrated form we have already stated this 
impression. 



13 CONTROVERSY 

The first serious collision with the Chancellor took place in 
February, 1837. 

The Professors were then suffering severe inconvenience from 
the omission of the last quarter day's payments, an inconvenience 
which was greatly aggravated by the deceptive promises and en- 
gagements of Dr. Mathews.* Immediately before leaving for Al- 
bany, he stated to the Faculty, (with many expressions of sympa- 
thy for their embarrassments,) that he left a sufficient amount due 
from rents on the building to discharge all their arrears, and 
that he had given directions to the Janitor of the University, to 
collect and pay them over. The Professors waited for some time 
but received nothing, and heard nothing from the Janitor. Upon 
sending for the Janitor they learned that about two hundred dollars 
had been collected, which the Chancellor had taken with him to 
Albany, and that less than a hundred dollars remained to be col- 
lected. The arrears of the Professors at this time amounted to 
about two thousand dollars — and this the Chancellor knew, when 
he referred the Professors to the rents for their dues. 

The Professors at once felt that every consideration obliged 
them to call upon Dr. M. for an explanation of a statement so pal- 
pably contrary to facts, and deceptive. The painful office was 
committed to the senior Professor ; and immediately on the re- 
turn of the Chancellor, was performed, in a manner at once re- 
spectful and firm, in the presence of the Faculty. The answer 
was extremely vague and unsatisfactory. An explicit and full 
explanation was, however promised, but has never been given — 
and Dr. Mathews felt from that hour that the confidence and re- 
spect of the present Faculty was lost forever. 

From that hour, too, we have reason to believe, he has medita- 
ted the retrenchment which he has at last, consummated. The 
plan was broached shortly after— -it was proposed to several mem- 



* It is well known to all concerned, and particularly/ well to the 
successive Treasurers that, whoever has borne the title, Dr. Ma- 
thews has been de facto. Treasurer of the University. This ex- 
planation is necessary, to show that we are not charging upon him 
a responsibility which does not belong to him. 



IN THE UNIVERSITY. 13 

bers of the Faculty, with attempts to prevail upon them to join in 
it against their associates — each, however, being solemnly assu- 
red that there was no design whatever against him ox his depart- 
ment — yet each mentioned to others as one whom it was expe- 
dient or necessary to remove. The shallow manoeuvre was how- 
ever seen through and despised. It certainly excited, in the minds 
of the Professors, no apprehension, and was regarded merely as an 
imbecile form of revenge characteristic of the man, and called into 
action by the perception that he was known and read of all. The 
only convert to it in the Faculty was Professor Mason. It met 
with as little favor from the Council. The only member of that 
body, as far as we know, who manifested any predilection for it, 
was Gen. James Tallmadge. We firmly believe that the Council, 
as then constituted, could never have been brought to sanction so 
infatuated and suicidal a measure. 

From the time of the above mentioned occurrence until the 
next February, making the full period of a year, the Professors 
received occasionally, and at long intervals, only small sums, 
scarcely sufficient to give any relief. 

The Chancellor during the whole summer continued to promise, 
and even made express appointments fojr the payment of their 
arrears, only to disappoint them. In the beginning of Oct. follow- 
ing, to which he had referred them as the period when, without the 
possibility of further disappointment they should experience relief 
from the fees of tuition — he suddenly abstracted these fees* to meet 
the interest of a mortgage upon the building, in violation of a reso- 
lution of the Council, which had appropriated them exclusively 
to the payment of the Professors. The Professors then prepared 
a statement of their affairs to be laid before the Council. The 
paper was drawn up with entire forbearance. Although they felt 
deeply aggrieved by the conduct of the Chancellor, all severe ex- 
pressions of censure were withheld. This paper was at first laid 
before the Finance Committee, upon the representation of the 



* The fees of tuition for the whole year, are, in the University, 
paid in advance. 



14 CONTROVERSY 

Chancellor, that this Committee was composed of eleven leading 
men of the Council — to use his own expression, " the bone and 
sinew of the Council," and that they would embody it in a report 
of their own, in such a way as to secure speedy and decisive ac- 
tion on the part of the Council. It was soon after ascertained 
that several gentlemen, whom he had mentioned as belonging to 
it, did not belong to it, and that the Committee held frequent meet- 
ings composed generally of only two or three individuals besides 
the Chancellor. After waiting five weeks without receiving any 
official communication from or through the Committee — a copy 
of the paper under strong opposition from him was sent to the 
Council. After this, several communications passed between the 
Faculty and the Council. One of these communications, signed 
formally by Professors Tappan, Patton, Proudfit, Mason, Beck^ 
Hackley, Norton, and Gale, and dated February 12th, 1838, and 
sent to the Council through Gen. Tallmadge, after stating the long 
accumulation of arrears, during the year then past — the disap- 
pointments which the Professors had suifered at the hands 
of the Chancellor, and the embarrassments which in conse- 
quence beset them daily in the discharge of their duties, closes 
with the following paragraph — " Under these circumstances we 
cannot allow any considerations but those of high and honorable 
duty to influence us. We wish not to relinquish an enterprise which 
has hitherto promised so much, as long as a hope of its ultimate 
success remains, nor can we turn loose the young men who have 
collected around us, and who, having paid their fees for the year, 
hold the Institution under most solemn obligations to carry on its 
operations. But on the other hand can we hope to hold up this 
whole machinery under present auspices. Is not some movement 
to our aid imperatively necessary ? We earnestly ask of the 
Council whether the affairs of the University do not demand a 
thorough investigation, and the application of an effectual reme- 
dy ?" By " present auspices," the Professors meant to refer most 
distinctly to the Chancellor, and by an " effectual remedy," as 
the result of "a thorough investigation," they meant with equal 
distinctness to refer to his removal. They believed then as they 
believe now, and that unanimously ^ that no other remedy could 



IN THE UNI VER 8ITY. 15 

prove eifectual. How the Council understood the Professors will 
appear from the following documents : — 

The paper of the Professors from which the foregoing extract 
is made, received the following reply : — 

''New-York, Feb. 15, 1838. 

Professor R. B. Patton, 

Dear Sir : — I am directed to inform you that at a meeting of 
the Council of the University, this evening, the Rev. Dr. Cox, W. 
B. Crosby, Esq. and myself, were appointed a Committee to con- 
fer with the Faculty, and represent the views of the Council oa 
the subject of the communication from the Faculty, this evening 
brought before them by their President. 

The above Committee propose to meet the Faculty at such 
room as you shall appoint in the University, on Saturday next, 
the 17th instant, at half past 4 o'clock, P. M. 

Will you have the goodness to notify the members of the Fa- 
culty, to make the requisite provision of a room for the proposed 
interview, and oblige yours. 

Dear Sir, very respectfully, 

on behalf of the Committee, 
ABSALOM PETERS." 

The following is the mifiute of the meeting held according to 
the above notification : 

Feb. 17, 1838, half past 4 P. M. 

" The Faculty met the Committee of the Council according to 
appointment. The Committee were all present, viz : Rev. Dr. 
Cox, Rev. Dr. Peters, and William B. Crosby Esq. The Secre- 
tary of the Faculty being absent, Professor Tappan was appoint- 
ed Secretary pro tem. 

The Committee, then, in the name of the Council, assured the 
Faculty of the unabated esteem and confidence with which the 
Council regard them. That the Council appreciate their pecuni- 
ary and other difficulties ; that at the proper time they will hold 
themselves ready to adjust satisfactorily every just subject of 
complaint. 

That they can hear nothing at present involving an impeach- 
ment of the Chancellor. 

First — Because he is absent. Secondly — Because any con- 
vulsion of the Institution, at the present time, must endanger the 
application now pending before the Legislature. 

They expressed their strong conviction that the existence of 
the Institution depends upon the Faculty holding together, and 
carrying on in the best way they can, its internal operations, and 
they desired the Faculty to communicate to them their determi- 
nation on this subject. 



16 CONTROVERSY 



That the Council do not believe that there has been any dis- 
honesties committed in relation to the funds, but that there has 
undoubtedly been great mismanagement — a great want of econo- 
my, and unwise appropriations. 

That in order to remedy the embarrassments which have re- 
sulted, and to prevent the recurrence of similar embarrassments, 
the Council are about to divorce the management of the finances 
from the head executive officer of the institution, and to commit 
them to a Committee of Finance and a responsible Steward, ac- 
cording to a plan which the Council are now digesting. 

That the immediate resources of the Council, consist of a sub- 
scription of $18000, and the expectation of an appropriation from 
the Legislature of the State — and that the Council will appropri- 
ate the first monies realised from these or any other sources to the 
payment of the Faculty. 

The committee then requested information respecting the re- 
moval of the fees of tuition from the hands of the assistant Trea- 
surer, Professor Patton, about the begining of October last — and 
also respecting the sums actually paid to the Professors from 
monies subscribed by the Council, Dec. 8th, or about that time. 

Thereupon the Committee dissolved the meeting, and the Fa- 
culty adjourned. 

H. P. TAPPAN, Sec. pro tem." 

In reply to the request of the committee to know the feelings 
t)f the Faculty as to the practicability of continuing the course 
of instruction under the existing pressure, the following note was 
sent a few days after : 

To the Committee of Conference with the Faculty of the University : 
Tuesday Morning, Feb. 20, 1838. 

Gentlemen : — In reply to ""the inquiry proposed by the commit- 
tee at the conclusion of our interview on Saturday last, we beg 
to assure you that all the motives which have hitherto sustained 
ns in struggling with the difficulties of our situation, have receiv- 
ed new strength and encouragement from the assurances you have 
given us of sympathy and co-operation on the part of the council ; 
and that, highly appreciating, as we do, the disinterested perse- 
verance of the council in this enterprise and the noble sacrifices 
which they have personally made towards sustaining it, we should 
feel it a dereliction, alike of duty and of honor, to abandon it. 

We are unwilling however, to promise more than we may be 
able to perform. Stern necessity has fixed a limit even to the 
possibility of endurance. It is with sincere reluctance that we 
add this remark, and we are sure that it will be appreciated by 
yourselves and by the council. 



IN THE UNIVERSITY. » 17 

Permit us, gentlemen, to add the assurance of our high gratifi- 
cation at the progress and result of the interview with which you 
have honored us. It has left us with a cheering conviction that 
those whose public spirit and liberality first gave birth to the 
University and have supported it amidst its early vicissitudes, 
still feel an unabated zeal for its interests, and an unshaken de- 
termination to sustain it through all its embarassraents. We are 
resolved, how qyqt, par cere verbis male ominatis, and to infuse into 
our future exertions in your service, the fresh hope and energy, 
with which, we are happy and grateful to say, you have inspired 
us. 

We are, gentlemen, 

With sentiments of the highest respect, 
Your obd't. servants, 
(Signed in behalf of the Faculty.) 

J. PROUDFIT, 
ROBT. B. PATTON. 
Rev. S. H. Cox, D. D. ; A. Peters, D. D. ; W. B. Crosby, 
Esq., Committee of Conference with the Faculty, <^c. 

These documents go satisfactorily to show that an investiga- 
tion of the Chancellor's character and measures were not an idea 
which sprung up to meet the retrenchment scheme. Soon after 
this interview with the Committee of the Council, the Council 
completed the arrangement by which the management of the 
finances and the other interests of the University were " divorced 
from the executive head of the institution." The afi^airs of the 
University were distributed among the following committees : a 
Committee on the Faculty of Science and Letters ; a Committee 
on the Faculty of Law ; a Committee on the Faculty of Medicine; 
a Committee on the Building ; and a Committee of Finance. A 
Bursar of the institution was also appointed. When the Chan- 
cellor returned from Albany he was evidently chagrined at the 
changes which had been made during his absence, but with his 
usual art pretended to approve of them. One of his first mea- 
sures, however, was to defeat the very arrangement of the com- 
mittees. He endeavored to combine the three Committees on the 
Faculties in an action upon one Faculty alone, viz : The Facul- 
ty of Science and Letters. This was not acquiesced in by the 
Committee on the last named Faculty. The Chancellor, howev- 
er, by contriving to call joint meetings of all the Committees on 
3 



18 CONTROVERSY 

the Faculties, succeeded in bringing together, at least, John Lo- 
rimer Graham, Esq. and himself, and between them mainly, it ia. 
believed, was the celebrated retrenchment scheme concocted. 

On the 17th of May, this joint Committee reported that they 
would be ready to submit an arrangement which they were di- 
gesting as soon as the Finance Committee should have made their 
report. These intimations scarcely drew any notice from the 
Faculty. They heard that the Chancellor was endeavoring to 
form a joint Committee, but from the information recieved from 
members of the Council they were led to regard both its forma- 
tion and its measures as mere idle attempts of the Chancellor to 
baffle the late judicious measures of the Council. 

On the 5th of June, the Finance Committee presented their 
able report — to this report we have already alluded. If any fears 
could have been entertained from the machinations of the Chan- 
cellor and John Loriraer Graham, Esq, this report certainly was 
calculated to dispel them. 

We believed now that the affairs of the University were ap- 
proaching a crisis and we hoped that it would prove a glorious 
and a redeeming crisis. 

In the course of the month of May, the Professors were invi- 
ted to a conference with the Committee on the Faculty of Science 
and Letters. This conference was of a cheering nature. We 
began to feel that the middle wall of partition between the Fa- 
culty and the Council was about to be broken down. The Chair- 
man of this Committee, the venerable Dr. James Milnor, stated, 
among other things, that if there were any grievances under which 
in the apprehension of the Professors, the institution might be 
laboring, they were desired frankly to communicate the same to 
this Committee, by whom they would be laid before the Council. 

From the whole aspect of the measures of the Council and from 
the sentiments expressed by many indiAddual members, we could 
not but believe that a movement on our part, made judiciously, 
would be, frankly and cordially met on their part. The University 
too, was in a state which forbade the Professors, as honest men, 
longer to remain silent. ' The debt was overwhelming. The very 
Library and Apparatus were under the hands of the Sheriff. — 
Their own convictions respecting the Chancellor were full and 



INTHEUNIVERSITY. l9 

unanimous that he did not possess the confidence of the commu- 
nity, and he had forfeited their own to a degree which rendered it 
impossible for them to contemplate a longer connection with him. 
Under these circumstances they firmly believed that an investiga- 
tion into all the matters relating to the University in their con- 
nection with the Chancellor's conduct and character — an investi- 
gation thorough and impartial was imperatively called for. They 
did not contemplate becoming themselves the formal prosecutors 
of the Chancellor , nor from the sentiments expressed by many 
members of the Council did they deem it necessary. What they 
aimed at from the beginning was simply to lead on an investiga- 
tion in which they themselves being the witnesses of what they 
related might be called in to make statements and produce facts, 
besides whatever statements and facts might legitimately and 
fairly be called in from other sources. While the Chancellor, on 
his part, should have full opportunity for explanation and counter 
statements and facts. They regarded the whole transaction as 
solemn and important and one to be conducted under the eye and 
in the open presence of justice and truth. As the mildest and 
most decorous way of bringing this about they decided after mature 
and calm deliberation to send in to the Committee on the Facul- 
ty of Science and Letters a paper expressive of their sentiments. 
This Committee* consisted of the Rev. Dr. Milnor, the Rev. 
Dr. Cox, and Doctor Delafield. The paper was accordingly 
sent in and submitted to their discretion, and is as follows : 

" The Committee of the Council on the Faculty of Science and 
Letters having at their late interview with the Faculty invited 



* The following extract from the Statutes will shew the power 
of this Committee : 

" It shall be the duty of this Committee to devise and execute 
in co-operation with the Faculty, plans for the enlargement and 
improvement of each particular department. This Committee 
shall report quarterly to the Council the condition of each depart- 
ment, and such other facts and circumstances as they may deem 
important to be communicated to the Council. It shall be the 
duty of this Committee to nominate suitable persons to fill any 
vacancies which may occur in any departme ntof the Faculty." 



20 CONTROVERSY 



them to make a statement of any matters of importance to the 
interests of the University or any grievances affecting these in- 
terests. 

We, the undersigned Professors, feel ourselves compelled to 
the painful avowal (an avowal which we make without any feel- 
ings of individual hostility, but from a deliberate and solemn con- 
viction, that truth and the interests of the Institution no longer 
permit its concealment) that, in our opinion, the head of this In- 
stitution does not possess the confidence of the community. And 
also, we avow, that he has forfeited our own confidence, and that 
we fully believe, that while this is the case, no expedients to re- 
lieve the embarrassments of the University, to elevate its char- 
acter or to augment its resources can be successful. The above 
communication we submit to the Committee, to be made use of 
at their discretion. 
HENRY P. TAPPAN, Prof, of Int. and Mor. Philosophy, • 
ROBT. B. PATTON, Prof, of Greek Lang, and Literature, 
J. PROUDFIT, Prof of Latin Lang, and Literature, 
LEWIS C. BECK, Prof of Chemistry, 
CHAS. W. HACKLEY, Prof of Mathematics, 
C. MASON, Prof of Evi's. of Rev' d. Relig. and Belles Letters, 
W. A. NORTON, Act. Prof of Nat. Philos'y. and Astronomy, 
L. D. GALE, Prof, of Geology and Mineralogy . 
University of the City of New-York, May 30, 1838." 

They presumed that this paper would come before the Council ; 
but the time and circumstances of its presentation, they deemed 
it both respectful and judicious to leave to the judgement of the 
Committee. Before they had decided what disposition to make 
of it and while its existence was yet known only to them- 
selves — the Chancellor in an interview with the Committee was 
led, from a remark dropped incidentally by a member of that body, 
to suspect that some communication had been made to them. He 
immediately insisted upon information. It was given, and the 
paper read to him. Its contents apparently produced a deep im- 
pression upon him. He held, within a few days after, several 
interviews with members of the Committee and members of the 
Faculty, in which he avowed that the paper placed him in a crit- 
ical position, where a single step might ruin him. He offered to 
withdraw from all connection with the University, except a very 
general one, such as presiding at Commencements, if the Profes- 
sors would withdraw tke paper from the hands of the Committee, 



IN THE UNIVERSITY. 21 

To this the Professors could not consent as honest and consistent 
men — They had expressed their conviction that the Chancellor 
did not possess public confidence — They had avowed that he had 
forfeited their own — After this expression, it was impossible for 
them to yield to any arrangement by which he should continue to 
hold an important and dignified connection with the Institution, 
unless, by a fair investigation, the crooked should be made 
straight, the dark and doubtful made plain, and a dishonored 
reputation purged of its spots, so as to claim and hold the respect 
and confidence of the community. When he found that the Pro- 
fessors were firm, instead of calling for an investigation, as a 
man strong in the consciousness of his truth and integrity would 
be expected to do, he expressed a determination to resign out- 
right. This determination he made known to the Chairman of 
the Committee, Dr. Milnor — to two members of the Council— to 
a member of the Faculty, and finally to a gentleman whom the 
President of the Council, Gen. James Tallmadge, had requested 
to call on him, and to urge upon him the importance of an imme- 
diate resignation. In the course of the conversation with this 
gentleman the Chancellor proposed going to Europe, and instead 
of a direct resignation, merely to place his office, on the occasion 
of his departure, at the disposal of the Council. The gentleman 
advised him, in opposition to this, to give in a plain and decided 
resignation, and he, (Dr. Mathews,) at the close of the conversa- 
tion stated distinctly that his mind was made up to pursue the 
course advised. At the next meeting of the Council, however, 
he handed in the following paper : 

(Copy.) 
** To the Council of the University of N. Y., 

It has long been a matter of apprehension with many among 
my friends, that my health might be injured, by the number and 
amount of my various public duties ; and it has been the earnest 
advice of my family physician, that I should be constantly on the 
watch for those indications which nature might present, to show 
that she felt herself overtasked. It is my duty to state to the 
Council, that of late my apprehensions on this subject have been 
somewhat awakened ; and after consulting with several medical 
advisers, I am brought to the conclusion that I owe it to myself, 
to my family, and to my prospects of future usefulness, to seek, 



22 CONTSOVERSY 



both a respite from my labors, and a severance, for a time, from 
the scenes and associations of labor by going abroad. 

This determination and the reason which has led to it, have 
made the subject of my present relations to the University a 
matter of anxious consideration. It may be judged desirable that 
an officer should be at the head of the Institution who shall al- 
ways be at hand to give counsel and direction. By referring to 
the Statutes it will be seen that the Chancellor is elected for the 
term of four years, and until a successor shall be appointed. It 
is now seven years since the Council did me the honor to confer 
the appointment on me : and under all the circumstances of the 
case I would respectfully suggest that the Council consider the 
office as in their hands with my concurrence in any measures 
respecting it which they may see fit to adopt. 

The Council I trust will not consider me as relinquishing any 
of my interest in the Institution. It has been too dear to me 
from its origin, ever to fade away from my affections, or my sym- 
pathies. It will ever be my desire to do every thing in my 
power for its prosperity and its usefulness. It has already grown 
to a form and an aspect which places it among the most important 
literary institutions of our land. Its Faculties of Letters, Sci- 
ence, Arts, and Law, are formed, while the Faculty of Medicine 
is so nearly completed that the work may be considered as in a 
great measure done. Besides the contributions already received 
from individuals, it has received an appropriation from the State 
which, when properly seconded by farther liberality on the part 
of the public, will relieve it from any pressing pecuniary diffi- 
culties. I have never had a doubt that on a proper application 
the aid now required will be cheerfully afforded, and the perma- 
nent welfare of the Institution thus secured. 

I would here wish to be understood as declining to receive 
from the University anything in the form of salary for time du- 
ring which I am not actually employed in its service ; and not 
alluding farther to any of the details or other interests connected 
with this communication, I would simply add, that should the 
Council see fit to appoint a Committee to confer with me on such 
matters, I will esteem it a favor and be happy to meet with them. 
With highest considerations, 

I am, etc., 

J. M. MATHEWS. 
University of New-York, June 14th, 1838." 

John Lorimer Graham, Esq. immediately after the reading of 
the paper, moved that it be referred to a Committee, which was 
done. The Committee consisted of himself as Chairman, and 
five other friends of the Chancellor, and was appointed by the 



IN THE UNIVERSirr, 23" 

President, Gen. Tallmadge, who was himself added to the num- 
ber. The communication of the FacuUy was then brought for- 
ward. The reading of it was objected to by several of Dr. Ma- 
thew's friends, but the objection being over-ruled it was read, and 
referred to the same Committee. 

This Committee was appointed June 14th. The Chairman of 
the Committee stated in a meeting of Council the following week, 
that they were not yet ready to report, but in the mean time would 
lay before the Council the following correspondence : — 

" New-York, June 16, 1838. 
Dear Sir :— I have been instructed by the Committee to whom 
was referred your communication to the Council of the Universi- 
ty, relative to your proposed visit to Europe, to enquire, whether 
your health and arrangements will allow of your prolonging your 
departure until after the approaching annual commencement. The 
Committee deem it of importance to the Institution that you should 
perform your accustomed services upon that occasion, and request 
me to express their hope, that you will be enabled to be present. 
I wish your reply to-day, as it will have an influence upon the 
action of the Committee, who meet on Tuesday morning. 

With great respect, 

I am very truly yours^ 
JOHN L. GRAHAM, Chairman. 
Rev. Dr. Mathews, Chancellor of the Universiy, New York." 

" Univertity of New-York, June 16, 1838. 

Dear Sir : — It being the opinion of my medical advisers, that 
I should embark on my voyage as soon as practicable, I had in- 
tended to take my passage in the packet of the first July next. 
The communication from your Committee, however, is decisive 
with me, as to the duty of postponing my departure until the ap- 
proaching commencement shall have been held. Inasmuch as the 
*' Committee deem it of importance to the Institution that I should 
perform my accustomed services on that occasion," I feel that a 
compliance with their wishes is required, alike by my respect for 
their judgment, my attachment to the interests of the University, 
and my gratitude to the Council for their uniform kindness and 
indulgence. With gTeat respect, 

lam truly yours, 

J. M. MATHEWS." 

J. LoRiMER Graham, Esq. Chairman, etc. 

The following Resolution was also offered by Mr. Graham, and 
laid on the table, viz : — 



24 CONTROVERSY 

" Resolved, That communications accusing an officer of this 
Council of official misconduct, or reflecting upon the manner in 
which he has performed his duties, shall be presented to the Coun- 
cil of the University only." 

This resolution is remarkable as showing that Mr. Graham in 
certain connections could think of the propriety of bringing char- 
ges against the Chancellor before the whole Council. 

This Committee brought in no report until the day after com- 
mencement, July 19th, when they reported resolutions in sub- 
stance as follows : — 

That the Chancellor be permitted to go to Europe, and that his 
salary be continued to him during his absence, and 

That Gen. James Tallmadge, who had kindly offered to serve 
in that capacity, act as Chancellor during the absence of Dr. Ma- 
thews. 

The paper of the Faculty was barely alluded to, and was repre- 
sented as of too general a character to claim any notice. 

The only conclusion that can possibly be deduced from the re- 
port, in connection with this fact is — that the Committee intended 
to smother the paper of the Faculty, and to remove the Chancel- 
lor from the possibility of an investigation by a leave of absence 
to travel in Europe. The resolutions of the Committee were 
laid on the table. 

A few days previous to this, having heard of no action being ta- 
ken upon our paper, and strongly suspecting a result like the one 
above developed, we had addressed to the Committee on our Fa- 
culty the following communication. 

To the Committee of the Council of the University j on the Faculti/ 
of Science and Letters. 
Gentlemen : — On the 4th of June last, we placed in the hands 
of your Chairman, by a Committee of the Faculty, a paper con- 
taining certain statements in reference to the Executive Head of 
this Institution. In taking this step, we conceived ourselves act- 
ing in strict compliance with the instructions of the Council, com- 
municated to us by your Committee, at an interview which we 
had the honor to hold with you in tke course of May last. We 
were then requested to communicate to you any plans which we 
might form from time to time for improving the system of instruc- 
tion and discipline in the University, and to state any grievances 
which, in our opinion, might interfere with its usefulness. We 



INTHEUNIVERSITY. 25 



considered ourselves happy in possessing an organ of communi- 
cation, so entirely satisfactory to us all, with the body under 
whose auspices we were laboring. We believed that it augured 
well for the future prosperity of the University, and resolved to 
lose no time in availing ourselves of the important opportunities 
which it afforded us of making the Council more intimately ac- 
quainted with the interior condition of the Institution. 

We had, gentlemen, many plans to propose, of improvements 
in the University, each in our own departments. But we felt 
ourselves compelled to move first in obedience to your last solici- 
tation. We therefore acquainted you with the existence of a 
grievance — the greatest and heaviest which can possibly rest on 
any Institution — a grievance which we knew, and had long known, 
to be paralizing the energies of the Institution, and drying up the 
sources of public bounty. We unanimously placed our hands to 
a statement that the Chancel^r of this University had totally for- 
feited our confidence, and, in our opinion, did not possess the 
confidence of the community. 

These, gentlemen, were grave and solemn charges. They 
touched, as we were fully aware, the moral character of the indi- 
vidual to whom they related — -they impeached his standing in tho 
community for truth and uprightness. They were charges which 
no innocent man could allow to stand for one hour, uninvestiga- 
ted. And an investigation av as what we naturally looked to as 
the consequence of these charges. We were fully aware that 
unless they could be substantiated by the most ample and unan- 
swerable testimony, they would recoil, with overwhelming fore© 
upon ourselves, and convict us before the community, as base and 
cruel calumniators. 

And so long as an investigation is suspended, it must remain 
in doubt whether such be not our real character. We have brought 
these charges against a man high in station, and most honorably 
connected in the community. If they are true, the interests of 
religion and education require that they should be promptly acted 
upon. If they are false, immediate banishment from society 
would not be too severe a punishment for the authors of the ca- 
lumny. This, doubtful position, gentlemen, we are not willing 
to occupy. We have taken our stand from a sense of duty to our- 
selves; to the youth who have been placed in the bosom of this 
Institution to be nurtured, not only in science but in virtue ; to 
the Council who have confided to us the interior management of 
the Institution, and to the public and the state whose bounty has 
endowed and fostered it. An investigation can alone decide 
whether we have assumed a necessary though painful responsi- 
bility from these high motives ; or whether we have combined, 



26 CONTROVERSY 



with a unanimity, hitherto unparalleled in the annals of falsehood 

and malignity, to ruin the character of an innocent man. 

The relaiive position of the Chancellor and the Professors has 
now become matter of public notoriety. His positive assurances 
that on a given day, he would resign his office to the Council, in- 
duced us for a time to hope that this publicity with all its deplo- 
rable consequences, might be avoided. Had he taken this 
course, we had resolved to let the whole controversy sink into 
immediate and perpetual oblivion. But the course which he pur- 
sued then and subsequently, has convinced us that no such hope 
is to be entertained, and that an examination of testimony can 
alone bring the question between us to a decisive and final issue. 
We therefore request you, gentlemen, to communicate to the 
honorable body which you represent, our earnest desire for an 
immediate investigation of these charges — an investigation con- 
ducted in the presence of the whole Council, to whom the public 
have confided the high responsibility of deciding the question, and 
to whom we confidently look for a wise and righteous decision. 

HENRY P. TAPPAN, 
ROBT. B. PATTON, 
J. PROUDFIT, 
C. W. HACKLEY, 
LEWIS C. BECK, 
WM. A. NORTON, 
L. D. GALE. 
University of the City of New- York, July 13th, 1838. 

This paper was presented by Dr. Milnor, Chairman of the Com- 
mittee on the Faculty, at the same meeting at which Mr. Graham 
reported his resolutions. The object of this paper evidently was 
to bring on without further delay the investigation we desired. 
We have already stated that it was not our intention, as it was not 
our office, to become the formal prosecutors of the Chancellor, but 
to present an occasion for an investigation to be instituted on the 
part of the Council. We very naturally and reasonably supposed 
that when eight Professors constituting the entire corps of in- 
structors in the undergraduate course, came forward and expres- 
sed their entire want of confidence in the Head of the Institution, 
and their belief that he had lost the confidence of the community, 
it would in itself form a fact sufficiently grave and alarming to 
claim the serious attention of the Council, and to call for an in- 
vestigation. We believe that the common sense of anunprejudi- 



IN THS UNIVERSITY. 27 

ced community, must instantaneously receive the same impres- 
sion. 

That our paper should have been referred to a Committee al- 
ready appointed for a different object, ^nd that too a Committee 
composed exclusively of the friends of the Chancellor, instead of 
being referred to a Committee expressly appointed to take charge 
of a matter of such grave import, and to settle the form and con- 
ditions of a full and impartial investigation, struck us at once as 
an event extraordinary and portentous — but what was our aston- 
ishment when we found week after week passing away, and no 
notice taken of our communication, except the threat by Mr. Thomas 
Suffern in the Council, that he would move for the dismission of 
the Professors, and language of similar violence and abuse from 
other members of this Committee. Under these circumstances, we 
drew up our second paper, and in it gave the widest construction 
to the contents of the first. When the Committee reported resolu- 
tions granting the Chancellor leave of absence to Europe with his 
salary continued, and his character endorsed in the very face of the 
paper of the Faculty, without deigning to notice that paper, they 
seemed to have reached the climax of partiality to the Chancellor, 
and injustice to the Professors. Our second paper, one might have 
imagined, would come in here very opportunely, to give a more 
rational and just direction to the action. But the res-ult has proved 
that these extraordinary developments had then only begun. Our 
second paper was referred to the same Committee. The instructions 
of the Council to the Committee, and their action under the same, 
will appear from the folUowing paper : — 

" Sir : — I am directed as Chairman of the Committee mentioned 
in the accompanying proceedings to communicate them to you ; and 
also the passage of the following Resolution by the Committee, 
with the request that you will at an early day furnish the Com- 
mittee through me, with the charges which you have to prefer 
against the Chancellor of the University, under the communica- 
tions referred to them. 

" Resolved, That a copy of the Resolution referring the last 
communication of the Professors to the Committee, be communi- 
cated by the Chairman of this Committee to the Professors sign- 
ing said communication, and that he request them to furnish to 



2-8 CONTROVERSY 



him the charges which they have to make against the Chancellor, 
imder their communications referred to the Committee. 
I am very respectfully, 

Your obedient servant, 
JOHN LORIMER GRAHAM, Chairman. 
New- York, July 30th. 1838. 

University of the City of New- York, July 19, 1838. 

" Mr. Graham, Chairman of the Committee to whom were re- 
ferred a communication from the Chancellor, on the 14th June 
ult., and also a paper signed by Henry P. Tappan and others. 
Professors of the University, made a report in writing." 

" Dr. Milnor, Chairman of the Committee on the Faculty of 
Science and Letters, announced that the said Committee had a 
further communication from seven Professors on the same sub- 
ject. Whereupon, 

" On motion, Resolved, That the Report of Mr. Graham belaid 
on the table, for the purpose of receiving the said communication 
from the Professors ; which, being read, was found to be expla- 
natory of their former communication, expressive of a desire to be 
heard by the Council relative to certain charges against the 
Chancellor, and signed by the same individuals who signed the 
former communication, excepting Professor Mason. 

" On motion. Resolved, That the above named report and com- 
munications from the Professors, be referred to the said Commit- 
tee, of which Mr. Graham is Chairman ; and that said Comm.ittee 
investigate the charges made against the Chancellor by the Pro- 
fessors, with power to take proofs in writing, and report the facts 
to the Council for their decision, without comment or opinion by 
the Committee. Copies of the charges to be served upon the 
Chancellor ten days before the testimony is taken." 

It will be evident to' every one that by this action a direction 
was given to the whole affair contrary to what the Professors had 
a right to expect, and justice demanded. It is assumed that they 
are to become formal prosecutors of the Chancellor, and they are 
requested to furnish the charges which they have to prefer against 
the Chancellor. Now they had intended to call the attention of 
the Council to no charges, but what were expressed or contained 
by obvious implication in the two propositions. " In our opinion the 
Head of the Institution does not possess the confidence of the 
community" — and " we avow that he has forfeited our own con- 
fidence." In reference to these two propositions we had request- 



IN THE UNIVERSITY. 29 

ed an *' investigation to be conducted in the presence of the whole 
Council" where, as before a dignified, impartial and dispas- 
sionate tribunal, we would present the facts and testimony on 
which these propositions were based. »0n the one hand believ- 
ing that if we could prove that the Chancellor did not possess the 
confidence of the community, and could show ample grounds for 
his having forfeited our own confidence, we should be sustained 
by the Council, in the conclusion that his longer connection with 
the Institution would defeat every expedient — " to relieve its em- 
barrassments, to elevate its character or to augment its resources." 
While on the other hand, if we failed to make the case good, we 
would lay ourselves open to the most serious consequences, for a 
deliberate attempt to calumniate a respectable man. On assu- 
ming the responsibility of this alternative, we claimed of the Coun- 
cil as a bench of Judges, who could not rightfully depute, and 
who ought not to desire to depute their powers to a Committee, 
to investigate collectively and for themselves the charges — to hear 
with their own ears the proofs and facts. If we had been wrong 
in our construction of their official capacity, they might have 
yielded to a request which showed no disposition other than to 
bring the case under the clearest " Sun," and in the most " open 
field," at least they might have forborne to abandon us to the mer- 
cy and to yield U'S to the discretion of a Committee, sonae of whose 
members had evidently prejudged the case by their open and 
violent denunciations of the Professors. A Committee too whose 
Chairman was John Lorimer Graham, and whose most command- 
ing name was that of Gen. James Tallmadge, 

We will suppose that we had yielded to the citation of the 
Committee and appeared before them as the formal prosecutors 
of the Chancellor ; independently of our strong and well ground- 
ed distrust as to the impartiality of their investigation and the 
faithfulness of their report, we had reason to fear that after enga- 
ging in the investigation they might suddenly have cut the matter 
short and have represented to the Council that upon an examination 
of the " Revised Statutes" it appeared that the whole business 
was unauthorised and illegal — the Professors having no right to 
prefer charges and therefore nothing more remaining for them 



30 CONTROVERSY 

" except again to refer to their former report," they might have 
requested to be " discharged from the further consideration of the 
several subjects before them/' 

When the note of Mr. Graham was addressed to the Professors 
only a part of them were in town — these addressed to him the 
following joint reply : — 

'•' Sir, — We have received your communication as Chairman of 
a Committee of the Council, and having ascertained that all the 
Professors with the exception of the undersigned are absent from 
town, we have taken measures to procure their attendance at as 
early a day as practicable. 

R. B. PATTON, 
J. PROUDFIT." 
Disappointed thus in their wish to have an investigation insti- 
tuted on the part of the Council and conducted before the whole 
body ; The Professors as soon as assembled in town took the 
whole matter into deliberation ; and becoming aware by information 
given by one of their number that legal and technical difficulties 
might meet them in appearing before a Committee of the Council 
in the character of prosecutors, and having also serious objections 
to appearing before the Committee at all, as above intimated, they 
applied to legal counsel of acknowledged standing in this city, 
and one of the Professors having occasion to go to Philadelphia 
about this time consulted also an eminent lawyer of that city — 
the gentlemen consulted concurred in the advice not to appear 
before the Committee but to procure some member of the Council 
to present the charges and to have the whole affair conducted in con- 
formity with the provisions of the Revised Statutes on this subject 
We accordingly decided to apply to J. Prescott Hall, Esq. This 
gentleman had not attended recent meetings of the Coimcil. 
What his sentiments were towards the Chancellor we knew not, 
but we presumed that he was uncommitted. A committe was 
sent to wait on him. On a statement of the case — he replied 
that although he was a friend of the Chancellor, yet as the matter 
was of grave importance and ought to be fully investigated, he 
would undertake to present the charges at the next meeting of 
the Council, Aug. 30th. — reserving to himself his right as judge — 
but assuring us of an " open field and a clear sun." The follow- 
ing note was now sent to Mr. Graham — 



IN THE UNIVERSITY. 31 



« Sir : — In reply to your communication of the 30th ult., we 
beg to state, that having laid the same before our legal counsel, 
we are advised that formal charges against an officer of a literary 
institution can only, by law, be presented by a member of the 
Council. As Pres'cott Hall, Esq., has consented as a member of 
the Council to present these charges, we have concluded to 
await the progress of the affair in this form as one which is lia- 
ble to no legal or technical objections. 

Permit us to add that our last paper neither preferred nor gave 
notice of any new charges, which seems to be implied by some 
expressions in your communication, but simply requested that 
the Council would ascertain and determine by an investigation 
the truth and validity of those contained in our first, whether they 
are denominated charges or statements merely we have deemed of 
no importance. 

Signed in behalf of the Professors, 

J. PROUDFIT, 
R. B. PATTON, 
H. P. TAPPAN. 
New-York, Aug. 8th 1838." 

We then prepared charges with specifications arranged under 
two of the heads of complaint against an officer of a literary in- 
stitution mentioned in the " Revised Statutes" viz. Misbehaviour 
in Office, and Immoral Conduct. 

The specifications of his misbehaviour in office related to his 
conduct as the financier and general agent of the Institution, — as 
the organ of communication between the Faculty and the Coun- 
cil, — and as the presiding and executive officer of the Institution. 
The specification of immoral conduct related to his duplicity, 
prevarications and false statements in his intercourse with the 
Faculty, and in his transactions on account of the University. 
One of our specifications clearly implied also disqualification for 
the office, arising from his general reputation in the community. 

It is unnecessary for us here to introduce the details of the 
testimony by which these charges were proposed to be supported, 
but as it has been remarked in the published documents of the 
Chancellor and his friends that the Professors have not manifest- 
ed " a sincere desire for the discovery of truth;" if any thing 
is necessary beyond the clear statements of this paper, in order 
to expose the utter falsity of this remark, the Professors do here 
distinctly state, that they hold themselves ready to give their own 



32 CONTROVERSY 

testimony in addition to other testimony which can be produced 
in support of these charges before any impartial tribunal in the 
land. 

It is a remarkable fact which we cannot avoid adverting to 
here, that Mr. Hall who was absent at the time when he promised 
to present the charges, without any intimation before or explana- 
tion since, was present at subsequent meetings when measures 
of violence were taken against the Professors and voted with the 
Chancellor's friends for the expulsion of the Professors without 
a trial or accusation. Nor can we repress our indignation that 
after repeated attempts to bring on a fair and open investigation 
before the whole Council — and after finally putting our charges 
into the hands of the President of the Council and their reading 
had been called for, and the appointment of a prosecutor moved 
by a member of the Council, (but called and moved in vain!) it 
should be gravely stated over the signature of Wm. Curtis Noyes, 
a partner of Mr. Graham — a new man in the City — a new man 
in the Council, and a new Chairman of the Committee.* " Their 
charges would at any time have been received by your Commit- 
tee even after they had once declined to present them." 

July 26. The work so long concocting by Dr. Mathews and 
John Lorimer Graham, Esq. appeared in the form of the resolu- 
tions of Reorganization. At this meeting the Vice President of 
the Council, the Rev. Dr. Milnor, after a lesson on propriety and 
duty had been read to him by John Lorimer Graham, Esq. re- 
signed his seat in the Council. The following correspondence 
afterwards passed between him and the Professors : 

"University of the City of New-York, Sept. 11, 1838. 

Rev. and Dear Sir : — Considerable surprise having Ijeen 

expressed, throughout the community, at your resignation, in the 

then existing circumstances, of the ofiice of Councillor of the 

University of the City of New-York, the duties of which had 



* Our first knowledge of Mr. Noyes as a member of the Coun- 
cil and as Chairman of the Committee, indeed, our knowledge of 
him, in any sense, was on Sept. 27th, when he brought in the 
report which it seems Mr. Graham the senior partner declined to 
bring in. 



1 N T H E U N 1 V E R S I T Y. 83 



been discharged by you, from the earliest period in the history of 
the Institution, with such distinguished zeal, dignity, integrity, 
and intelligence — we, in common with other friends of the Insti- 
tution, beg leave to request of you a statement of the causes 
which led to a separation from the Council, — deplored, we be- 
lieve, by every friend of Science and religion in our community — 
in order that we may present the same to an impartial and unpre- 
judiced public, who are longing to see, from your own pen, a true 
statement of facts. 

We would only add, that we have always felt that our cause 
derived the strongest support from your eloquent and fearless ad- 
vocacy, and from the universal influence of your unblemished 
name. 

We are. Sir, with sentiments of 

the highest respect and affection, 
yours, &c. 
On behalf of the Professors, 

ROBERT B. PATTON, ) 
HENRY P. TAPPAN, } Committee. 
JOHN PROUDFIT, ) 

Rev. James Milnor, D. D. 

Messrs. Henry P. Tappan, Robert B. Patton, and John 
Proudfit, Committee of Professors in the University of New- 
York : 

Gentlemen : — On my return from Philadelphia last evening, 
I find your obliging note of the 11th instant, requesting of me a 
statement of the causes Avhich led to my separation from the 
Council of the University, in order that you may present the 
same to the public. 

I regret that it will not comport either with the advice of my 
friends, or my own feelings, to furnish the statement you desire. 
The public can be but little interested in my relinquishment of 
an office, in which, with a great sacrifice of time and feeling, I 
was persuaded, under existing circumstances, I could be no 
longer useful. 

The same desire to avoid controversy, and maintain my owa 
peace of mind, that led me to withdraw from the unpleasant agi- 
tations by which the meetings of the Council, for several weeks 
before my resignation, were disturbed, have determined me to take 
no part in the public discussions to which the measures of the 
Chancellor and his friends have given rise. 

Believing that the Institution, under proper auspices, is emi- 
nently calculated to promote the cause of Science and Letters in 
our great and increasing metropolis, I cannot but hope that a 
gracious Providence will so overrule events, as that it may yet 



34 CONTROVERSY 

enjoy all tlie prosperity which injudicious measures have for a 
time destroyed. 

But I entirely concur with you in the persuasion, that to regain 
what it has lost, and to obtain that support, without which the 
success of its operations cannot be anticipated, it must have at 
its head a man who possesses the confidence of the community 
to a far greater extent than the gentleman who now controls its 
concerns. 

With a high estimate of the learning and talents with which 
you have assiduously devoted yourselves to your duties in the 
University since your connexion with it, and with great personal 
regard, I remain, gentlemen. 

Your obedient servant 

and assured friend, 

JAMES MILNOR, 
Beekman Street, Sept. 19, 1838." 

It was at a meeting of the Council, held Aug. 30th that our 
charges were to have been presented by Mr. Hall, and were actu- 
ally sent in to the President of the Council.* It was at this 
meeting that the charges instead of being laid before the Council 
by the President — instead of being read when called for — instead 
of being submitted to judicial action when the appointment of a 
prosecutor was moved — were simply retained by the President, 
It was at this meeting that the Resolutions re-organising the 
Professorships were brought forward and passed, twelve only vo- 
ting for them, including the President, the Chancellor, and John 
Lorimer Craham Esq, who is not legally a member of the Coun- 
cil. [See Appendix E.] These resolutions were understood by 
those passing them to effect the removal of seven Professors. — 



* The charges were sent in to Gen. Tallmadge Aug. 30, at a 
meeting of Council, accompanied with the following note : 

" Sir : — The enclosed Documents were to have been present- 
ed to the Council this afternoon by J. Prescott Hall, Esq. Ow- 
ing to his unexpected absence from town, we beg leave to place 
them in your hands, and respectfully request you to lay them be- 
fore the Council. 

We are &c. 

H. P. TAPPAN, ) Committee 
R. B. PATTON, } of the 
J. PROUDFIT, > Professors. 



IN THE UNIVERSITY. 35 



Some days afterwards the following note was addressed to tlie 
Professors : 

University of the City of New- York, Sept 6th 1838. 
Sir : — You are requested to meet with a Committee of the 
Council on Saturday next, the 8th inst., at 3 o'clock P. M., in the 
Chancellor's room. 

Respectfully yours, 

ARCHIBALD MACLAY, Jr., 

Assistant Secretary. 

The following answer was returned": 

Sir : — In reply to your note of Sept. 6th, we beg leave to 
state, that in all previous instances, the proposal of an interview 
between a Committee of the Council and the Faculty, has been 
addressed to us by the Chairman of the Committee, and has been 
accompanied by some notice of the objects for which the Com- 
mittee was appointed and of the business to be transacted at the 
conference. A mere " request" from the Secretary of the Coun- 
cil to " mee4; with a Committee of the Council" is so wide a de- 
parture from the usage, both of the Council and the Faculty, that 
in the absence of our associates, we do not feel at liberty to com- 
ply with it, as a course so unusual and informal might not receive 
their sanction, and might thus be followed by serious inconveni- 
ences. We are, &c. 

J. PROUDFIT, 
H. P. TAPPAN, 
New-York, Sept. 8, 1838." R. B. PATTON. 



Not having received any communication from Gen. Tallmadge 
in reply to the above, the following note was addressed to him 
Sept. 10th. 
Gen. Tallmadge — 

Sir : — We had the honor, on the 30th August, to enclose to 
you, as President of the Council of the University, certain docu- 
ments to be laid before that body. As you have declined to pre- 
sent them on the ground that, in your opinion, this step on the part 
of the Professors was informal, we respectfully request you to re- 
turn the said papers to us, by the bearer of this note. 
We are, &c. 

In behalf the Professors, 

J. PROUDFIT, 
R. B. PATTON, 
New- York, Sept. 10. 1838. 



36 



c o ^" T R V E r. s y 



Official nodce of the resolutions desio-ned to effect a re-orffani- 
zation \vas sent to each of the Professors, Sept. 12ih, as follows : 

New- York, Sept. 9th, 1S38. 

The Committee appointed by the Council of the University of 
the City of New York, ha\dng been convened at 5 o'clock to-day, 
for the purpose of conferring with you upon the subject referred 
to them, and as you did not attend agreeable to notice, I have been 
requested by the Committee to communicate to you the follow- 
ing, as passed by the Council at their meeting last week. 

Resolved, That until the further order of the Council, the Fa- 
culty of Letters and Science for instruction in undergraduate stu- 
dies, shall consist of the following Professors, viz : — 



Sept. I9th. — The charges were returned, accompanied with the 
following note : — 

New-York, Sept. 17, 1838. 
To Professors Proudjit and Tappan, 

Gentlemen : — Your note dated on the 10th, desiring me tore- 
turn by the bearer, your communication sent to be laid before the 
Council of the University, on the 30th August, was handed to me 
this day, (17th Sept.) while at dinner at the Astor House. I 
could not then see the bearer of your letter. But now hasten to 
retiurn your documents to you, herewith inclosed. The recital in 
your note of my reason for declining to lay your documents before 
the Council, is an entire misrepresentation of my reasons. For 
correction, if you deem my reason material on a mere request to 
return the papers, I refer you to my letter of the 31st ult., sent 
through the Post Office to you. 

"When I left town in the morning boat, after the meeting of the 
Council, on the 30th ult., I left the papers with Mr. J. L. Graham, 
a member of the Council, who I belive had a copy taken of them. 
I am Gentlemen, 

Yours, 6zc. &c, 

JAMES TALLMADGE, 
President of the Council of the University. 

Mr. J. L. Graham stated in the presence of Professors Tappan, 
Norton, and Proudfit, (September 19th,) that "it was entirely at 
the request of General Tallraadge, that he had had copies of 
the papers taken." This statement was made in reply to a re- 
mark from Professor Proudfit, that it was a very extraordinary 
proceeding for the President to allow a copy of papers to be taken 
which he had declined to present to the Council, and which had 
never been placed in his hands as " private papers.'' 



I N T H E U N I V E R S 1 T Y . 87 



One Professor of Languages. 

One Professor of Mathematics and Natural Philosophy. 

One Professor of Intellectual and Moral Philosophy and 

Logic, who shall also give instruction in History. 
One Professor of the Evidences of Revealed Religion and 

Belles Lettres. 
One Professor of Chemistry, Geology, Mineralogy and Bo- 
tany. 
One Assistant Professor of Languages, who shall also aid in 
the studies of the Freshman year, as occasion may require* 
, Resolved, That all previous enactments or resolutions of the 
Council, which may be inconsistent with the above arrangement, 
be, and hereby are rescinded." 

I would further state, the same Committee were appointed to 
receive applications of gentlemen to fill the ojO&ce of Professors 
and Assistant Professors, in the University, under the above ar- 
rangement, and to report to the Board. The Committee will re- 
port to the Council at an early day. 

W. W. CHESTER, Secretary of the Committee. 

This communication plainly implies blame to the Professors 
for not attending a meeting of " the Committee convened to-day, 
(Sept. 9th, Sunday !) for the purpose of conferring" with the 
Professors, " upon the subject referred to them" (the Committee.) 
It is of importance to call attention to the fact, that we had recei- 
ved no notice to attend such meeting, except the note of Secreta- 
ry Maclay above given. This Committee is styled " a Commit- 
tee," in the note of Mr. Maclay, and " the Committee" in their 
own communication to the Professors ; but while in the note of 
Mr. Maclay no intimation whatever is given respecting the pur- 
pose for which this Committee had been appointed — in their own 
communication an allusion is made to a " subject referred to them" 
without any explanation of the subject itself. 
.- On September 12th, was also received the following letter,* 



* Gen. Tallmadge after the appearance of the " Letter to the 
Councillors," at a meeting of Council, entered this letter on file, 
with the gratuitous statement that we had it in our possession at 
the time we wrote the " Letter to the Councillors." If such were 
the fact, we cannot perceive that it had a very important bearing ; 



38 



CONTROVERSY 



dated, inside, New-York, Aug. 31st, postmarked Poughkeepsie, 
September 3rd : — 

August 31st, 1838. 
To Professors Patton, Tappan, Proudfit, &c. &c. 

Gentlemen : — I have received your letter desiring me to pre- 
sent to the Council of the University, your communication, &c. 

From the known tendency of Professors to combine and beget 
feuds with their Principals, the Legislature have long since wise- 
ly enacted, that Professors cannot become accusers against their 
Principals. I am entirely unwilling to adopt your communica- 
tion as my own act, and thus become an accuser. I cannot, there- 
fore, present it to the Council, either as from you or myself. I 
am the more willing to adopt this conclusion, as I think, from the 
matter and form of your communication, it is more calculated to 
injure the character of the Professors, than the individual they 
seem so desirous to accuse. 

Respectfully yours, &;c. 

JAMES TALLMADGE. 

Upon this letter of Gen. Tallmadge we remark — that his hit at 
Professors is without point — they are a class of men with whom 
he has been but little associated. Their " known tendency &;c." 
is a weak assumption of his own, neither true in point of fact, 
nor appearing from the enactment, to have crossed the mind of 
the Legislature. The provision of the law relates to all officers 
of Literary Institutions, and prevents •' Principals" from prefer- 
ing charges against Professors, as well as Professors from pre- 
ferring charges against their " Principals ;" 

That he was not requested nor expected " to adopt the commu- 
nication as his own act," but merely to lay it before the Council. 
It is, indeed, a new predicament of a Chairman of an organised 
body, if he cannot lay communications before the body over 
"which he presides, when requested to do so, without adopting 
them as his own acts ! At this very meeting too, the President 



but it was not the fact. " The Letter to the Councillors" was 
printed Sept. 8, four days before the letter of Gen. Tallmadge 
was received. We sent a note to the Council, by the hands of 
Dr. Peters, the Secretary, correcting the statement of the Presi- 
dent, but when Dr. Peters presented it in Council, the President 
would not allow it to be read. 



I N T H E U N I V E R S I T Y . 39 



having stated that he had received papers from the Professors 
containing certain statements against the Chancellor, the follow- 
ing Resolution was offered, viz : " Resolved, That the Presi- 
dent be requested to present said papers to the Council" — which 
was rejected! How merely honorable — how merely just, it 
would have been for the President to have laid the papers before 
the Council — for the Council to have ordered their Secretary to 
read them — for a day then to have been appointed for the calm 
and impartial investigation of the whole affair ; and, if, for the 
orderly conduct of the same, a prosecutor was found necessary, to 
have elected one ! No objection as to form of law could have 
existence in such a procedure — besides, those who clamour that 
the Professors did not appear before the Committee, have no 
right to urge any objection as to form of law, inasmuch as "the 
Legislature have, long since, wisely enacted that Professors can* 
not become accusers against their Principals," before Committees 
as well as before Councils. 

The papers were condemned to silence, and the twelve wenfe 
on to do their work. They passed their Resolutions of reorgani- 
zation — more appropriately of disorganization. 

Need we ask, what led on these gentlemen ? No fault in the 
Professors is alledged. In the whole of this controversy, there 
has appeared but one charge against them, and that, the futile 
charge of rebellion and contumacy, because they stood up against 
violence and despotism in defence of their right, and their good 
name, and for even handed justice. Was retrenchment the mo- 
tive ? The very face of the proceedings contradicts this. The 
retrenchment is trifling — it does not reach the pressure. But 
more than all, the violence of the proceedings and the violence 
of the language contradicts this. No delicacy was observed. — 
It was done — and twelve days afterwards the Professors were 
insulted with the information, that " a Committee had been ap- 
pointed, and had already met to receive applications of gentlemen 
to fill the offices of Professors and Assistant Professors under 
the new arrangement." 

No — it was not retrenchment ; it was retaliation — retaliation, 
urged on by Dr. Mathews, in the attempt, by force instead of 
calm investigation, to sustain his character. [See Appendix F.] 



40 CONTROVERSY 

From the moment we declined to appear before the Committee 
and attempted again to bring the charges before the Council, there 
commenced the procedeings we have described. It was found 
that the Chancellor could not be silently shipped off to Europe; — 
that we would not allow our papers to be smothered in the long 
e mbraces of a packed Committee — nor allow ourselves to be haled 
before them in the obscurity of a Committee chamber — there to 
be mocked at discretion, or to be turned adrift under the authori- 
ty of the " Revised Statutes" — instead of coming before the 
whole Bench of Judges. — We preferred the Court of the Are- 
opagus to the closet of Dionysius. — Management had failed, and 
therefore by one bold and desperate blow they determined to 
silence these noisy and pertinacious accusers. In one short 
hour the charges were disposed of — the Professors disposed of — 
and the truth and integrity of the Chancellor established ! — 

On the 8th of September the printed letter of the Professors 
was addressed to the members of the Council. — A few days af- 
terwards we published our card intimating our intention to go on 
at the opening of the term with the course of instruction as usual. 
These acts, although in defence of right — in exposition of truth — < 
and for the purpose of satisfying the students and encouraging 
them to remain and although sanctioned also by high legal au- 
thority, were construed into acts of rebellion against the govern- 
ment of the University. 

At a meeting of Council September 18th, the following pream- 
He and resolution were adopted — fifteen voting in the affirmative. 

"Whereas doubts are entertained by some persons as to the 
late acts of the Council, re-organising the Faculty of Science and 
Letters, (on the relations of H. P. Tappan, R. B. Patton, J. 
Proudfit, C. W. Hackley, W. A. Norton, L. C. Beck and L. D. 
Gale, to the University;) and whereas in view of the late publica- 
tions by the above named Gentlemen, in reference to the Council 
and University, manifesting open disregard to the authority and 
proceedings of this Council, it has become highly desirable that 
the sentiments of the Council should be distinctly expressed on 
the subject — therefore 

" Resolved, That Messrs H. P. Tappan, R. B. Patton^ J. Proud- 
fit, C. W. Hackley, W. A. Norton, L. C. Beck and L. D. Gale, 
be and hereby are declared to be no longer professors in this Uni- 
versity." 



INTHEUNIVER8ITY. 41 

A formidable difficulty now presents itself — the old Professors 
are indeed disposed of; but no officers remain, save the Chancellor 
and the Rev. Cyrus Mason, vs^ho alone had deserted the ground 
originally takenby himself in common vv^ith the other Professors. 
Nominations had already been made plentifully, but elections there 
were none, and the Professorships of a University went a begging. 
The next stated meeting would occur on Thursday, vSept. 27th, at 
5 P. M. On the same day, at 10 A. M., by the Chancelloi's adver- 
tisement, candidates were to be examined for admission, in the 
small chapel. The examination had to take place before the elec- 
tion of Professors. Truly this is an age fruitful in expedients ! 
The difficulty was avoided by the appointment of an Examining 
Committee composed of Gen. Tallmadge, W. W. Chester, Thomas 
Suffern, John Lorimer Graham and Obadiah Holmes, Esq's. — who 
were, it is to be supposed, either themselves to examine in the La- 
tin and Greek Classics or to see that this work, if committed to 
others, was done learnedly and critically. 

True to the advertisement of the Chancellor, on the day, at the 
hour, and in the place appointed for the examination of Candi- 
dates, the Professors made their appearance. Why did not the 
Chancellor take his place ? Why did not the Rev. Cyrus Mason 
take his place ? Why did not the Examining Committee, fill the 
smaU Chapel with their presence ? They had all, without the 
slightest notice of any change in the arrangements, retired to a 
small private apartment of the Chancellor, and there proceeded 
to examine such candidates for admission as could be intercepted 
on their way to the place appointed. 

Perceiving the determination of the Professors to appear on 
the ground, the Council appointed a Committee to demand their 
keys. On the next morning appeared the advertisement of the 
Chancellor, postponing the examination ; and on the afternoon of 
the same day took place the ceremony of demanding the keys. 
Thomas Suffern, and W. W. Chester, Esqrs., were the Commit- 
tee to whom this respectable office was entrusted. Thomas Suf- 
fern was now fitly chosen to act as the executioner of the ven- 
geance he had threatened months before, by locking the doors of 
an Institution of learning against its Professors. 
6 



43 CONTROVERSY 



The Chancellor having collected all his forces, the seats of the 
Professors were declared, for the third time, to be vacated. The 
following note, some days afterwards, was received by each of 
the Professors : 

" University of New-York, Sept. 29th, 1838. 

To Professor 

At a meeting of the Council of the University of the City of 
New-York duly notified on the subject, a " Resolution was adopt- 
ed by an affirmative vote of 19, declaring Professor na 

longer a Professor in this Institution." The Secretary was di- 
rected to transmit a copy of the same. 
Respectfully yours, 

A. MACLAY, Assistant Secretary."" 

Upon these successive votes, we remark : 
First. — The Council by their second vote, Sept. 18, acknow- 
ledged the illegality of their first vote, Aug. 30th, and of course 
justified the construction which the Professors put upon that vote, 
and also the publication of the card intimating their intention to 
go on with the course of Instruction as usual at the opening of 
the term, and as, retaining their offices, it was their duty to do. 

Secondly. — The Council by their third vote, Sept. 29th, ac- 
knowledge the illegality of their second vote, Sept. 18th, and of 
course, justified the construction put upon that vote by the Pro- 
fessors, and their consequent appearance at the University, Sept. 
27th, to resume their duties. 

Thirdly. — As the Professors, (the Council themselves being 
Judges,) were not legally removed by the vote of Sept. 18th — 
the Council by taking away their keys and thus preventing 
them from discharging their duty as Professors at the University, 
perpetrated a violence which nothing can justify, and dishonored 
themselves and the Institution of which they are the Trustees. 

Fourthly. — If, however, the subsequent votes should be repre- 
sented as designed to interpret the preceding votes, the pro- 
ceedings are surrounded with difficulties equally great. On the one 
hand, the act of interpreting a vote is an acknowledgment of ob- 
scurity, doubtfulness and imperfection, and justifies the subsequent 
acts on the part of the Faculty. On the other hand, if the votes 
were in themselves illegal an interpretation by increased majori 



I N T H E U N I V E R S I T Y . 43 

ties cannot render them legal. And an this ground alone, inde- 
pendently of other questions that must be raised, the last vote of 
Sept. 29th, although a vote of nineteen^raembers, has not dismissed 
the seven Professors. 

Fifthly. — The last vote of Sept. 29th, must be considered void 
also, on the ground that the statute of the University which orders 
that Professors " shall be removed at a meeting to be appointed 
for this express purpose^ of which notice shall be given/' was not 
complied with. 

Sixthly. — The first act as intending to remove seven Profes- 
sors, being so interpreted by the second act, was plainly and un- 
questionably illegal. (See Appendix G.) 

By this act as an illegal act, and directly assailing the offices 
of seven men, a wrong was perpetrated. For this wrong the Pro- 
fessors had a claim for justice, and as the wrong has not been 
repaired, must still have a claim for justice against the Council. 
Now the last act of the Council from its necessary and acknow- 
ledged relation to the first, must be illegal and void. In ihQ first 
place, the Council could not, in any justice, dismiss these gentle- 
men, when they already owed them redress for a wrong inflicted. 
In the second place, the third was but a following up of the first 
act, a mere affirmation, and not a new and independent procedure, 
and therefore a mere renewal, under more agravating circumstan- 
ces, of the wrongful act, and partaking not only of its malignity, 
but also of its w^eakness and invalidity. The whole affair is a 
tissue of imbecile passion and folly. 

But how was this majority obtained 1 The votes of many ho- 
norable men were not there. Sept. 10th, the following protest was 
entered upon the minutes in reference to the vote of Aug. 30th. 

Whereas, at a meeting of the Council of the University of the 
city of New -York, held on the 30th of August, 1838, a resolution 
was passed by the votes of one third of the Council, as follows : 
viz: — 

" Resolved, That until the farther order of this Council, the Fa- 
culty of Science and Letters for instruction in the undergraduate 
studies shall consist of the following professorships, viz : — 

One Professor of Languages. -jif 



44 c N T R V E n s y 



One Professor of Mathematics and Natural Philosophy. 

One Professor of Intellectual and ^Moral Philosophy and Logic, 
who shall also instruct in History. 

One Professor of the Evidences of Revealed Religion, and 
Belles Lettres. 

One Professor of Chemistry, Geolog\', Mineralog}' and Botany. 

One Assistant Professor of Languages, who shall also aid in 
the other studies of the freshman year, as occasion may require :" 

And, whereas, it is supposed that such resolution will have the 
effect to displace seven of the Professors of the existing Faculty 
if the said resolution shall be acted upon and submitted to in 
practice. 

Now in view of the nature and object of the said resolution, and 
of the circumstances under which it was passed, we the under- 
signed, members of the Council of the said University, do hereby 
protest, and request that our protest may be entered on the records 
of the University, against the said resolution and every part there- 
of, as contrary to the provisions of the statutes of the State of 
New- York in regard to such matters made and provided, [Sec. 
1st Revised Statutes, page 461;] — as contrary to the statutes of 
the University- — [chap. vii. ^1 ;] — as in violation of the liberal prin- 
ciples on which the Institution was originally organized, as arbi- 
trary and oppressive toward the Professors, inasmuch as it assails 
and aims at destroying their rights and reputation, without any 
charges against them, and without giving them an opportunity to 
be heard ; — as calculated to destroy all confidence in the govern- 
ment of the Institution, and in the tenure of the professorships, 
which are thus subject to the will of a minority of the Council ; 
and to introduce into the courses of instruction a derangement and 
confusion which, especially on the eve of a new year, may be 
fatal to the very existence of the Institution. 

New- York, Sept. 10th, 1838. 

WM. W. WOOLSEY, 
CORNELIUS BAKER, 
EDWARD DELAFIELD, 
ROBERT KELLY, 
W. B. CROSBY, 
B. L. AYOOLLEY, 
ABSALOM PETERS, 
SAMUEL H. COX, 
R. T. HAINES. 

At the meeting Sept, 18th, when the second vote was taken, the 
majority had fifteen, the minority eleven names. 

L d* 0. 



IN THE UNIVERSITY. 



4S 



At the meeting Sept. 29tli, when the third vote was taken, the 
places of Dr. Milnor, Rev. Mr. Cone,* Hon. Walter Bowne, and 
Hon. Stephen Van Rensselaer had been supplied,! and supplied 
by persons subservient to the Chancellor ; some of them com- 
paratively strangers in the City, and some young men who only a 
few years before had been students in the University, and one of 
them recently a student in Gen. Tallmadge's office. The Hon. 
Stephen Van Rensselaer was written to, first by the Chancellor 
requesting his resignation, and afterwards by Gen. Tallmadge. 
The gentleman who stood first on the list of donors to the Uni- 
versity, whose high position in society, whose virtues and vene- 
rable age, rendered his name invaluable to the Institution, was thus 
disgusted into a resignation of his seat in the Council, by the 



* Mr. Cone, we have ascertained, never resigned his seat in the 
Council. He withdrew, at a meeting a short time previous, re- 
marking, that the scholarship on which he had supposed himself 
entitled to his seat appeared to be merely nominal, and he could 
not, under such circumstances, consent to act as a member of the 
Council. He afterwards, however, found that he was entitled to 
a seat on the ground of another subscription made to his account. 
But when he was on the point, soon after, of attending a meeting 
of the Council, he was informed that his place had been supplied 
by Wm. Curtis Noyes, Esq. Mr. Cone had been, from the be- 
ginning, a member of the Council and a steadfast friend of the 
Institution. The indelicate haste with which Mr. Noyes was 
thrust into his place, allowed no opportunity for examining into 
the reasons of Mr. Cone's scruples, or for enquiry after his ulti- 
mate decision. 

t Rev. Dr. Milnor resigned, and his place supplied by Samu- 
el S. Newland, Esq. 

Hon Stephen Van Rensselaer resigned, and his place supplied 
by Thomas W. Tucker, Esq. 

Hon. Walter Bowne resigned, and his place supplied by Wm. 
McMurray, Esq. 

Rev. Spencer H. Cone resigned, and his place supplied by 
Wm. Curtis Noyes, Esq. 

Rev. Archibald Maclay resigned, and his place supplied by 
Wm. B. Maclay, Esq. 

We understand that Stephen Whitney and James Ruthven, 
Esqrs. have recently sent in their resignations. 



46 CO XTr. GTZ?. S Y 

impommity of Dr. Mathews and Gen. Tallmadge. and his place 
supplied to meet '• ihe exigency.'* The resignation of the Hon. 
Walter Bowne, we infer from Gen. Tallmad^e's statement to the 
public, dated Oct. 1st., was obtained in the same way, and filled 
to the same end. This management, together with the false and 
abusire cry that the Professors were resisting the government of 
the Institution, enabled the Chancellor and his party to make up 
the number nineteen. If there are any other reasons to be as- 
sisrned for this result, we will leave an enlightened and impartial 
community to judge whether they can be found in a wise and ele- 
vated appreciation of the interests of Literature — in truth, honor, 
and justice. 

It ought, perhaps, also to be remarked, that of those who sus- 
tained the Chancellor two were near relatives, and three were 
members of his congregation, whose, partiality, ought, of course, 
to be viewed with due allowance. 

In looking over this statement, two lacts come prominently up 
to view. First. — Eight Professors, constituting the entire corps 
of Instructors in the undergraduate course, found themselves 
impelled, by reasons, in their judgement, sufficient, to make a re- 
presentation to the Council of their entire want of confidence in 
the Head of the Institution, and their belief that he had not the 
confidence of the commimity ; holding themselves ready at the 
same time to lay before the whole Council, facts and testimony 
to justify their own sentiments in relation to the Chancellor — 
and to make good their judgment of his standing in the conunu- 
nity : — and moreover, seven of these Professors, when an inves- 
tigation could not be obtained upon the presentation of their first 
paper, did actually go forward and embody their opinions and 
judgements respecting the Chancellor in the form of charges 
containing many specitications and laying open sources of proof — 
and engaged a member of the Council to present the same to 
that body — and when he failed to do so, sent them to the Presi- 
dent of the Council with the request that he would lay them be- 
fore that body. The reading of these charges was called for — 
amotion was made that a prosecntor be appointed — and finally, 
the charges were in possession of the President of the Coun- 
cil twenty davs. 



t X T H E U ^M V E R S I T T . 47 



■Secondly/.— The Council did not investigate the charges — but 
instead thereof and at the very meeting at which the charges 
were presented passed resohitions which were intended to effect 
the removal of the seven Professors and only them, by a vote of 
twelve members — and afterwards passed another resolution de- 
claring them by name to be removed by a vote of fifteen members, 
And afterwards passed yet another resolution -declaring them by 
name to be removed by a vote of nineteen members, several of 
whom had recently beea elected and were acknowledged to have 
been elected for the express purpose of obtaining this majority. 

By these acts both the accusers and the charges were removed 
from the Court of the Council. 

The Council com.posed the competent tribunal for taking cog- 
nizance of the whole matter. They have assumed the responsi- 
bility of passing it by ; and of ridding them-selves of the necessi- 
ty of instituting a trial, by an act of unex.-.mpled injustice. Sev- 
en men, simply because they claimed to be heard in an important 
investigation, were suddenly deprived of employment, and that 
too at the opening of the Collegiate year when it is impossible to 
obtain new employment, not only without the slightest compensa- 
tion for the derangement in their affairs ; but in the case of a 
majority of the Professors without the payment, up to this date 
October 29th, of any part of their heavy arrears for former ser- 
vices.* 

What they have done they seem in no disposition to recall. 
But unless they do recall what they have done and can annihilate 
all its influence and consequents they will be unable to repair the 
breach they have made upon the principles of justice and the 
rights and interests of learning. No trial of the Chancellor which 
they may now institute, can inspire the confidence of an upright de- 
cision. They have merged their character as judges into that of par- 
tizansandof men standing for judgment before an impartial commu- 
nity, for their own acts, seeking and making defences. They have 



* These arrears, in some cases, extend back to February last : — 
And let it be remembered, they are due for tuition, the fees for 
which were paid in advance, to the University, more than a year 
ago, viz. Oct. \st. 1837. 



■*0 CONTROVrnSY ; 

driven away from their number, aged, wise and dignified men, and 
have filled their places with the inexperienced and incompetent. 
They have substituted rashness and passion for deliberation and 
thought — they have substituted force for the decisions of justice. — 
They are no longer what they once were, a body of wi.se Coun- 
cillors presiding with calmness and dignity, with enlightened and 
liberal purpose over the affairs of a promising institution. Have 
they not rather taken the appearance of men wielding powers 
whose force and aim they do not comprehend — and in their blind 
zeal crushing to the earth the interests which they loudly profess 
to patronize and defend. 

This question is not merely a question relating to particular 
persons, and to a particular institution, — principles of perpetual 
and universal interest and importance are comprehended in it. 

Literar}^ Institutions are to be viewed in several relations. In 
relation to the law of the land under which they are incorporated, 
and come into the possession of rights and immunities. In rela- 
tion to the Trustees who are the legal holders of the property, 
and to whom is committed the power, and upon whom is imposed 
the duty of organizing the Institution and bringing it into opera- 
tion, and presiding over its interests, according to the provisions 
and intent of the charter. In relation to the Professors and 
Teachers upon whom come directly the discipline and instruction, 
and the weighty responsibility of the literary character and influ- 
ence of these Institutions. And finally, in relation to the commu- 
nity at large, who as citizens, as literary men, as religious men, 
as parents and guardians, and as students, have various and mo- 
mentous interests at stake. Now all these relations have their 
several expectations, claims and rights, alike irrefragable and 
sacred. But between these there is no collision. They are all 
harmonious, and co-perate to one great end, the enlightening and dis- 
cipline of the human mind in truth and virtue. 

Of all these relations by the common consent of men in all 
times, none is more sacred, honorable or important, than that of 
Professor and Teacher.* Their qualifications and virtues can 



*Quod munus reipublicae afferre majus meliusve possumus, q nam 
si doc emus atque erudimus juventutem ? Cic. de Div. 



IN THE U NI VER BIT y. 49 

alone carry out the design of these Institutions, in instructing youth 
and in forming character. The aim of the law is to provide faci- 
lities for appointing able Instructors, and to give effect and per- 
manency to their appointment. Trustees fulfil a most important 
part of their duty, when together with the proper materiel they 
have secured Teachers of literary character and high moral worth. 
And the community are then satisfied, and then alone when this 
is done. 

In adverting to these facts under existing circumstances, no 
charge of egotism can be incurred. Besides we are standing up 
for a universal interest. 

It is evident from the relations in which they are placed, and 
from the nature of the duties they are called to discharge, that 
Professors and Teachers require a condition free from irritating 
causes of disquietude and anxiety. Peace, permanency, confi- 
dence and enlightened and magnanimous patronage, are essentia 
to the progress of learning and the arts, and to the education of 
youth in science and virtue. 

Whether through ignorance or by intention, the President of the 
Council and his coadjutors have come with insult, sacrilege and 
violence, where men of all nations and ages are used to come 
with veneration, love and honoring expressions. The venerable 
forms of old Science and Philosophy, have trembled under their 
grasp, and the gentle muses are scared away by threatening looks 
and voices. 

They seem to have assumed that their own will is law ; the 
Professors mere employes whose offices know of no tenure but the 
will of their masters — and the public a mere collection of dupes 
who will of course confide in their statements, and yield to their 
suggestions. With small literary pretensions or experience them- 
selves, they have conspired against Literature and Science, against 
common sense and law. And for what ? Because seven Profes- 
sors asked an investigation into matters relating to the Head of 
the Institution, to be conducted before the whole Council, and 
pledged their own characters and standing as to the results of that 
investigation. 

Let it be universally established that Literary Institutions are 
under no higher protection of law than this — that Professors have 
7 



50 CONTROVERSY. 

no better tenure for their offices — that matters of vital and solemn 
importance, cannot at their request receive an investigation before 
the tribunal of the Trustees — but that to prefer a complaint or to 
solicit an investigation, is a crime which can be expiated only by 
an excision — and the death-blow is at once given to the whole 
educational system of the land. We may turn our Colleges and 
Universities into Hotels or Manufactories, close up our Lexicons, 
throw away our Apparatus, send our young men adrift, and invite 
the return of the dark ages. 

And now in conclusion we ask — to what primary and cardinal 
cause is to be attributed the convulsions and embarrassments of 
the University of the City of New-York? Is not every candid 
man, are not the whole public ready to reply — to its Chancellor ! 
He had not the wisdom, the character, the influence, adequate to 
the undertaking which unhappily for the interests of Science and 
Religion came into his hands. 

All the efibrts of the Professors have had but one end in view, 
to deliver the Institution from the pernicious influence of his pre- 
sence and measures. What we have done we have done openly. 
What we have written we have written under our own names. 
We have been the authors of no anonymous publications either in 
this or any other city. We have resorted to no trick, no manage- 
ment, no intrigue ; we have acted simply as honest men under 
weighty responsibilities — and we commit our cause and our do- 
ings to that sense of truth and justice which is implanted in eve- 
ry human heart, and to Him who on the Throne of Heaven and 
among the inhabitants of the earth " judgeth righteously." 

HENRY P. TAPPAN, 
ROBT. B. PATTON, 
J. PROUDFIT, 
C. W. HACKLEY, 
LEWIS C. BECK, 
WM. A, NORTON, 
L. D. GALE. 
New-York, Oct. 29th, 1838. 



APPENDIX. 



A. 

(See page 5.) 

The original terms of subscription to the University were as 
follows : — 

1st. Unless $100,000 were subscribed by the 1st of August, 
1830, the subscriptions were not to be considered as binding. 

2nd. Two fifths of the amount subscribed was to be paid one 
month after notice had been given that the sum of $100,000 
having been subscribed, by the time above mentioned, the sub- 
scriptions would be called for ; two fifths more, three months after 
the first payment ; and the remaining one fifth, three months after 
the second payment. 

December 2nd, 1830, the following notice was given in the 
daily papers, signed by seven Trustees. 

« UNIVERSITY OF THE CITY OF NEW-YORK. 
Whereas, the sum of $100,000, and upvvards, was subscribed 
before the first day of August last, for the purpose of establishing 
a University in the City of New- York, public notice of which 
was given, by the Executive Committee, on the 27th day of July, 
1830 ; the undersigned Trustees, named in the articles of sub- 
scription, do, hereby give notice, that the amount subscribed will 
be called for, by instalments, in accordance with the terms of 
subscription as follows : — two fifths of the sum subscribed, on the 
3rd of January next ; two fifths on the 3rd of April next ; one 
fifth on the 3rd of July next. The subscribers are requested to 



11 A P D E N D I X . 

pay their respective amounts to Mr. John Delafield, at the Phe- 
nix Bank in New- York, who is authorised to receive the same 
and give receipts therefor. , 

New- York, Dec. 2, 1830. 

In the Evening Post of Dec. S2d, 1830, the following article 

appeared : — 

"For the Evening Post. 
Mr. Editor : 

Sir : — Having observed in several papers that 
the Trustees of the new University have advertised for the sub- 
scribers to pay the first instalment upon their subscriptions, I 
take the liberty of addressing you this note with the request, that 
should you consider the enquiry of sufficient importance, you 
will give it a place in your paper. Professing to be a friend of 
the Institution, and having embarked in it a considerable interest, 
I am anxious that it should rise upon a 5?olid foundation — one 
that shall not bear the least shadow of suspicion — [Here follows 
a statement of the conditions of subscription.] From this state- 
ment it is evident that the $100,000 contemplated by the con- 
ditions of the subscription was to be immediately available and 
subject to the payments therein specified, and every individual 
who subscribed, did it with the understanding that the $100,000 
was not to be considered as raised, and the subscriptions were 
not to be considered as binding, unless the amount so raised was 
subject to the instalment thus specified ; and very far was it from 
the belief of such subscribers to suppose that any concealment 
was practised, and it was believed that the sum of $100,000 was 
raised actually at the command of the Institution. But, Sir, 
what are the facts in relation to this transaction, and I call upon 
the members of the late Executive Committee to explain it. I 
would ask that Committee, in the spirit of candour, 1st. If the 
$100,000 was subscribed agreable to the articles of subscriptions, 
and subject to the instalments by the first of August, 1830 ? — 
2nd. If on the first of August the actual subscriptions much ex- 
ceeded $60,000, and if the remainder was not made up by what 
the Executive Committee termed prospective scolarships, a 
sum which could not be realised within fourteen years 1 3d. I 
would ask that Committee if, in their report to the subscribers, 



APPENDIX. Ill 

they made mention of this deviation from the original conditions, 
and stated that they found it impossible to raise the amount by 
the time specified, and were obliged to resort to prospective sub- 
scriptions in order to state that the sum of $100,000 was subscri- 
bed although the actual subscriptions fell short of that amount ! 
These remarks are intended, Sir, to call the attention of sub- 
scribers to the subject, that they may investigate it before paying 
the money, lest the noble object they have in view may be de- 
feated by the failure of the Institution. The late Executive 
Committee, can alone explain this, and unless a satisfactory ex- 
planation is offered I shall decline paying my subscription, and 
must make a call upon the Committee by name. 

Dec. 12th, 1830. A SUBSCRIBER." 

The following, in answer to the above was published in the 
same paper, Dec. 29th, 1830 : — 

" Messrs. Editors : — ' A subscriber,' in your paper of Wed- 
nesday last, seems anxious to have some information respecting 
the state of the subscriptions to the New-York University — if he 
will call on the Secretary, with whom the books and accounts 
of the University have always been kept, he will learn that more 
than the whole amount of $100,000 was subscribed and secured 
to the Institution before the first of August last, agreably to the 
very letter of the terms held forth in the articles of subscription. 
* Professing to be a friend of the Institution,' he may be gratified 
to learn, from the same quarter, that the Institution has a much 
greater amount of means for the attainment of its ' noble objects' 
than the $100,000, and that its prosperity and strength are daily 
increasing. 

' ANOTHER SUBSCRIBER." 

About this time considerable dissatisfaction and suspicion like 
that expressed by " a Subscriber," appears to have been 
abroad, and is known to have excited uneasiness and anxiety 
on the part of the Chancellor. From circumstances which 
can be given in detail if necessary, it is quite probable that 
the article signed " Another Subscriber" was from his own pen. 
This article does not enter into any explanation of the transaction 



IV APPENDIX. 

mentioned by " a Subscriber," under tbe title of " Prospective 
Scholarships," but simply refers the enquirer to the Secretary, 
(John Delafield, Esq.) 

In the month of April, the books were examined, and the whole 
sum subscribed was foimd to amount to $101,200. Of this sum 
there were subscriptions to the amount of $45,280, upon most 
of which nothing had been paid. The subscribers whose names 
were put down for this sum, were for the most part Clergy- 
men whose circumstances in life rendered it extraordinary that 
they should become responsible for so large a proportion of the 
whole subscription. This at once excited suspicion. 

There was a book marked " Totals," into which all the original 
subscriptions made in several other books had been carefully 
copied. 

The subscriptions contained in this book of " Totals" were all 
represented by the Chancellor as good and valid subscriptions, 
and on the strength of this representation the subscribers were 
called upon by the Trustees in the notice above extracted from 
the Evening Post, to make payment. 

The amount of collections actually made upon the original sub- 
scriptions up to September 3rd, 1833, appears from the report of 
a Committee of the Council " appointed to examine the state of 
the finances," made at that time, to have reached $102,975. Of 
this subscription there had been paid, — 

In cash, $46,206 

Secured by mortgage, 2,500 

By contract for erecting building and other services, 4,650 
Amount which subscribers refuse to pay, 7,050 

Balance remaining due, 42,570 



$102,975 



The same Committee reported that a part of the above sum of 
$42,570 had been ''subscribed by ministers on their own responsi- 
bility or that of their friends ;"" and expressed it as their opinion 
that $36,070 of the amount would be collected. This Commit- 
tee probably had access to the book of " Totals." In December 



APPENDIX. * 

1832, John Delafield, Esq. had resigned the office of Secretary 
to the Council, and handed over the books to his successor, the 
Rev. Archibald Maclay. At the present time the Chancellor af- 
firms that the original subscription books as well as this book 
marked " Totals" are lost. 

It appears then that up to September 3rd, 1833, there had been 
collected in all $53,355, and that a balance of "^ooc^" subscrip- 
tions amounting to $36,070 remained to be collected on the ori- 
ginal subscription of $100,000 and upwards. Has this balance 
of $36,070 ever been collected ? Have any new subscriptions 
been obtained and collected, and to what amount ? It is impos- 
sible to answer these enquiries from any books of the University 
which are now accessible. The " Committee of Finance" in an. 
able report which was read to the Council June 5th, 1838, state 
that they are " entirely unable to procure a list of subscribers to 
the University," confining themselves to the credits in the ac- 
counts of the several Treasurers, they find the whole amount of 
subscriptions collected up to that date, (June, 1838,) to be $82,-. 
530 ; which is $29,175 more than had been paid in previous to 
Sept. 1838." 

But although the original subscription books are lost, the names 
of the " ministers^' by whom "a part of the balance of $42,570 
had been subscribed according to the report of the Committee 
made Sept. 3rd, 1833, and above referred to, have been ascer- 
tained. The following names are a part of those which can be 
unanswerably proved to have been on the book of " Totals." 
W. C. BROWNLEE, $1,500 

S. H. CONE, 1,500 

S. H. COX, 1,500 

D. L. CARROLL, 1,500 

J. B. HARDENBERGH, 1,500 

WM. McMURRAY, 1,500 

ARCHIBALD MACLAY, 1,500 

CYRUS MASON, 1,500 

W.W.PHILIPS, 1,500 

W.PATTON, 1,500 

P. L. ROUSE, 1,500 

B. L. RICE, 1,500 



VI APPEXDIS. 

GEORGE DUBOIS, 1,500 

REV. MR. WOODBRIDGE, 1,500 

The sums here subscribed formed an integral part of the sum 
of $100,000, which, in the notice of the Trustees, Dec. 2nd, 
1830, (given above,) is stated to have been subscribed before Au- 
gust 1st, 1830, according to the conditions of the subscription. — 
Now, if these sums were merely nominal, and not hone fide sub- 
scriptions, and put down for the purpose of making up the amount 
of $100,000, then, undoubtedly, a fraud was practised upon the 
subscribers. Again — if the names of these gentlemen were put 
down, without their authority or knowledge, then also we have 
an offence presented of a most serious character. From the 
subjoined letters, we will leave it to the public to decide whether 
all the above points of offence are not conclusively established. 



The following questions were addressed to all the gentlemen 
applied to for information respecting the subscription of their 
names. 

1. Were you ever a subscriber of $1500 to the University 
of the City of New- York ? 

2. Did you ever empower any person to place your name for 
that or any other sum on the Subscription Books of the Univer- 
sity 1 

3. Have you ever been informed that your name was placed 
on the Subscription Books ? 

Philadelphia, Sept. 3d, 1838. 
Rev. and Dear Sir : — All that I know on the subject of 
your inquiries, is, that in the winter of 1829 and '30, or in the 
following spring, the Rev. Doctor Mathews of your city, asked 
me whether I had any objection to his assigning me a portion of 
the Stock of the University of New-York, (the amount I do not 
recollect,) stating at the same time, that he had a number of 
shares at his disposal and was making distribution of them 
among his friends ; — and that such an arrangement would secure 
to me certain priviliges, if I should wish at a future period to 
place one of m.y own sons or some other youth in that Institu- 
tion. 



APPENDIX. VU 

I thanked the Doctor for his kind offer and expressed my wil- 
lingness to accept the favour, on condition the same could be 
done without the assumption of responsibilities on my part. 

In the month of September, 1830, I moved to the country; 
since which, I have heard nothing more about the matter. 
Very respectfully, yours, 

JAMES B. HARDENBERGH. 
Rev. Prof. Proudfit^ 



Princeton, N. J., Sept. 18th, 1838. 
Dear Sir : — I cannot tell with what surprise I read your let- 
ter, which has just come to hand. To each of your questions I 
answer No. No. No. It is impossible I ever could have 
brought myself either directly or indirectly, by myself or by ano^ 
ther, under any sort of obligation, to pay that sum to the Univer- 
sity of the City of New-York — ($1500) for I never have been 
nor expect to be able to do an act so liberal — -I have wished well 
and still wish well to the Institution — but have never felt myself 
able to do any thing more. 

Yours affectionately, 

B. H. RICE. 
Professor Patton. 



New- York, Sept. 14, 1838.. 
Rev. H. p. Tappan, 
My Dear Sir : — Your note of yesterday is before me. To 
the questions which you propose I answer in the order in which 
you make them. 

1. " Were you ever a subscriber of $1500 to the University of 
the city of New-York?" Answer, Never. 

2. " Did you ever empower any person to place your name for 
that or an)'' sum on the Subscription Books of the University.'' 
Answer, Never. 

3. " Have you ever been informed that your name was placed 
on the Subscription Books ? 

Answer. Never until a few days since, when a member 
of the Council inquired of me whether I had ever made or au- 
thorized a subscription to the University. At that time he in- 
8 



VIU APPENDIX. 

formed me of the fact that my name was down for $1500. He 
then shewed me a paper containing an extract from the Subscrip- 
tion Books, made several years since, by a gentleman of high 
standing then a member of the Council, in which my name ap- 
peared as a subscriber. This was the^r^^ intimation that I ever 
had on this subject. I do remember, that several years since, 
Rev. Dr. Mathews stopped me in the street, and after expressing 
a desire to have the University em.balmed in the piety and pray- 
ers of the churches, inquired if I did not think it probable that 
my church (the Central Presbyterian Church, Broome Street, of 
which Rev. Wm. Adams is now pastor) would endow a scholar- 
ship of $1500. I replied that I did not think it at all probable, 
as they were then struggling under a heavy debt. He asked 
if there were not some men who could subscribe something 1 
I replied I thought not, as those who had the ability felt 
the importance of reducing our debt. He then asked if I was 
willing that he should make exertions among my people, I replied 
certainly, as they were free agents and were of age. From that 
time until the day the inquiry above alluded to was made, I have 
never heard another word about a scholarship. Since the time 
I was first spoken to on the subject, I have been informed that it was 
represented that it was not expected that I would pay the $1,500 
placed against my name, but that my congregation " with a noble 
liberality had assumed the payment of this subscription." I have 
never heard that that people, characterized as they have been and 
still are for noble deeds, ever assumed the payment of a subscrip- 
tion in my name of $1,500. Up to the time when I ceased to be 
their pastor, the subject was never brought before them. I have 
not the least evidence that this sum was ever paid. The use of 
my name was wholly unauthorized, and I regard it as a very dark 
transaction by whomsoever it was perpetrated. 

Yours sincerely, 

WM. PATTON. 



366 Greenwich Street, New-York, Sept. 
Gentlemen : — Yours under date of September 8, 1 received a 
few moments ago. 

I was truly astonished when, for the first time, my colleague 



APPENDIX. IX 

Dr. Knox did, last evening, mention to me that my name stood on 
the University books as a subscriber for $1,500. 

I assure you, gentlemen, that I never did subscribe the sum of 
$1,500, nor any sum whatever ; and v^^hat is more, no human be- 
ing ever mentioned the thing to me, nor asked me to subscribe. 

If my name stands on the books for that, or any other sum, it 
stands there by an impudent and base forgery. 
With great respect, 

I am Gentlemen, 

Yours very truly, &c. 
W. C. BROWNLEE. 
To Messrs. Professors Patton and Proudfit. 



Tarry Town, Oct. 22d, 1838. 

Dear Sir : — I have just received your letter, and hasten to in- 
form you of the facts respecting which you enquire. When the 
effort was being made to establish the University, Dr. Mathews 
called on me, and informed me that a gentleman, whom he did 
not name, had left $6,000 in his hands for the University, which 
he had the liberty of presenting, in the form of Scholarships, to 
whom he pleased — that if I would accept of one he would pre- 
sent it to me, which, he remarked, would always entitle me to 
the privilege of having a pupil in the Institution free of expense, 
either my own son or any person else whom I might select. I 
thankfully accepted his offer. 

Soon after, I received a printed circular containing the names 
of the stockholders, and mine among the rest, calling a meeting 
for the purpose of electing a Chancellor — I attended. Since 
then I have twice called on the Chancellor to procure the bene- 
fit of my Scholarship for indigent young men, but could obtain 
no satisfactory answer ; and I had come to the conclusion that 
after the election for Chancellor was over I had no more stock 
in the University than in the moon, and had ceased to think of it. 
Your letter quite surprises me, for I conclude that my name does 
appear, in some way, upon the books of the Institution. 

I assure you that I never subscribed or authorised any other 
person to subscribe for stock on my account, except in the way 
that I have stated ; and you would oblige me much if you would 



APPENDIX. 



inform me in what way my name appears on the books of the 
Institution. 

Yours, 

GEORGE DUBOIS. 



The question must now arise, who is the individual chargeable 
with these points of offence ? — One thing is certain there is one 
individual and only one to whom suspicion attaches in this mat- 
ter — and that individual is Chancellor Mathews. He it appears 
from the above letters was the only individual who ever consult- 
ed any of these gentlemen, where they were consulted at all. He 
endorsed the subscriptions as good and valid. He declared the 
conditions of the original subscriptions to be fulfilled — and he col- 
lected from bona fide subscribers the amount of their subscriptions. 
He was acquainted with all the financial operations from the be- 
ginning and is acknowledged to have been himself the chieffinan- 
cier. He it is in fine, who affirms the hooks to be lost. 

If the suspicions above intimated be well founded there is an 
adequate motive to account for the loss of the books. 



B- 

(See page 6.) 

The following is the second article from the pen, of " a Share- 
holder." The statements are of unquestionable authority : — 
"UNIVERSITY OF THE CITY OF NE W.YORK. 

In a statement recently made to the public, purporting to come 
from the Council of the University of the City of New-York, 
and signed by James Tallmadge, it is said, ' The Council would 
be doing injustice to the Chancellor, if they omitted to notice the 
charges of pecuniary delinquency which have been industrious- 
ly circulated against him. Upon this subject they needed no 
proof. The facts are within the knowledge, and appear upon the 
records of the Council.' ' There has never been one cent of de- 
falcation found in his accounts.' To this is subjoined the certifi- 
cate of the Auditing Committee, that they find upon examining 
Dr. Mathew's accounts, a balance in his favor of $5489 97-100. 

This certificate proves nothing to the point, when it is consid- 
ered that the Auditing Committee went into no original investiga- 



APPENDIX. XI 

tion as to the manner in which monies had been received, nor 
from whom received, but simply noted the amount acknowledged 
by the Chancellor as received, and examivied the vouchers pre- 
sented by him to prove that the same had been fully disbursed. 

The subject of defalcation, we understand, has never been 
considered by the Council or its Committee of Finance. The 
manifest reason is, that the Subscription Books having been lost, 
it would be im.possible to determine anything accurately on that 
subject. 

The following statement will afford some light in regard to the 
rumors which are abroad :— 

FACTS OPPOSED TO ASSERTIONS. 

Instruction was begun in the University Oct. 1, 1832. 

Sept. 3, 1833, the Chancellor, in a report to the Council, states 
the tuition fees already received horn students, to be $4,765. 

The Finance Committee, in their report presented June 5, 1838, 
find on the Chancellor's accounts for the year terminating Oct. 
1, 1833, the following amount of tuition fees, acknowledged and 
accounted for, viz : 

Tuition fees received, $4,470 00 

Repaid to the Professors of Spanish, &c., 527 50 



Net receipts for the year, . $3,942 50 

which is $822 50 less than the amount reported by the Chancellor 
as actually received up to Sept. 3, 1833, as above stated. 

February 4, 1834. — The Chancellor presented to the Council 
a detailed report of the state of the Institution, which is recorded 
at length on their minutes. In this report, he states that the 
amount of tuition paid and payable for the then current year, was 
$7177, to which he added the estimated amount to be received 
by the Professors of Spanish, &c. — $2000 or more — making the 
whole income from tuition that year, from $9000 to $10,000. 

The Finance Committee, in their late report above named, 
find that the amount actually accounted for as recived for tui- 
tion during the year ending October 1, 1834, exclusive of the 
amount received by the Professors of Spanish, &c., was only 
$5,542 41, which is $1,634 59 less than the Chancellor reported 
as paid and payable in February of that year. 



Xll APPENDIX. 

In the autumn of 1837, the Chancellor, in a report to the 

Council, stated the tuition fees for the current year to be $8,230 

Rents for the same year, 6,614 



The Finance Committee, in their report above 
named, state the actual amount of receipts ac- 
counted for during the same year for tuition to 
be $5,239 

For Rents, 5,650 



$14,844 



$10,889 



Difference, $3,955 

In most of the estimates and reports of the Chancellor concern- 
ing tuition fees, &c. the amounts are stated in gross sums, with- 
out memorandums. 

The cost of the large Chapel, the Finance Committee report 
to have been, $19,933 44, which is several thousand dollars 
more than it had been stated by the Chancellor, much of which 
would not have been incurred by the Council, had they been 
aware of the amount. 

The Finance Committee report the Philosophical Apparatus to 
have cost $5,836 90. The Chancellor had stated the cost at 
rising of $10,000. 

The actual cost of the University building and ground, inclu- 
ding interest on money borrowed for its erection, the Finance 
Committee report to be $200,000 ; and yet the Chancellor, in a 
report presented to the Council on the 3d of May last, makes the 
following statement : ' The building which we have erected is 
confessedly an ornament to our City and our State, &;c. A vigi- 
lant economy has been used in its erection, which brings its actu- 
al cost much below what may now be considered its real value. 
Indeed, the money expended in the completion of the third and 
fourth stories and the Chapel, is now producing to the Universi- 
ty a yearly income of from ten to twelve per cent, on the amount 
thus laid out.' How could this be so, when the cost of finishing 
the Chapel alone was nearly $20,000, and the rents actually re- 
ceived from the whole building were less than $6,000 1 The fact 



APPENDIX. XlU 

is, the amount received on the whole property of the University^ 
which has cost, as above stated, $200,000, and has also incurred 
a debt in addition to its original cost of $57,000 making in all 
$257,000, is not much above two per cent, on the amount thus 
expended. 

A Committee of the Council in an able report dated September 
1833, estimated the amount of good subscriptions at that time to 
be $89,425 00 

Interest received on moneys loaned 
to that date 3,085 00 



Total, $92,510 00 



There had then been received into the 
Treasury, $53,355 00 

Interest, as above, 3,085 00 

-$56,440 00 



Balance remaining to be collected, $36,070 00 

This sum the Committee judged would be collected. But the 
whole amount collected and accounted for up to June, 1838, was 
only $82,530. The amount collected by the Chancellor and all 
others since September, 1833, is less than $28,000. To have 
collected this amount in five years will be regarded as no very 
striking evidence of efficiency, when it is remembered that at the 
beginning of that period the Chancellor had in his hands a good 
subscription of $36,070, with the field open before him for pro- 
curing new subscribers. May not this signal failure, in part at 
least, be accounted for by the fact that some ten or fifteen clergymen 
whose names were down for $1,500 each, and who were proba- 
bly regarded by the Committee of 1833, as bona fide subscribers, 
were wholly ignorant that their names had been thus used with- 
out their consent, and of course have never been called on for 
their subscriptions. 

The above are only specimens of numerous statements which 
we are assured might be gathered from the documents of the 
Council, in which the reports of the Chancellor and of Commit- 
tees conflict with each other, and cannot be reconciled. The 
Shareholders and the public will judge where the truth is and go- 



SiiV- APPENDIX-. 

vern themselves accordingly. If (to borrow an expression frbm 
the communication of the Council published in the Express, of the 
10th inst.) the citizens of New-York may regard this as ' their own 
University,^ it stands them in hand to look to it, and if possible 
save it from the ruinous consequences of the course of things 
indicated in the foregoing statements. 

Oct. 13 A SHAREHOLDER." 



C. 

MISSTATEMENTS TO THE BOARD OF REGENTS. 
The Chancellor (See Report to the Board of Regents, page 

35,) estimates the value of the University building to- 
gether with the lot, at $260,000 

The actual cost as reported by the Finance Committee, 

including interest upon money borrowed, is, 200,000 



Difference, 60,000 

It is well known not to be worth more than its cost — it is be- 
lieved that it will not sell even for this, because the building has 
laot been put up at an economical rate. 

The Chancellor estimates the Apparatus at $10,000 

The Finance Committee report its cost 5,836 



Difference, 4,164 

The Chancellor estimates the Library at 7,000 

The Finance Committee report its value to be 4,147 



Difference, 2,853 

The Chancellor states the debt at " something over'^ $11 0,000 
The Finance Committee report the debt on the first 
of May last to be 170,583 



This " something over^^ amounts to 60,583, 

The whole number of students the Chancellor (Report, &c. 

page 32,) states to be 364 

The Professors affirm that this number and indeed nothing like 

this number, has been within the walls of the University, during 

any one year. It is known that the Chancellor has used various 



APPENDIX. XV 

expedients to swell the number — for instance — many of the stu- 
dents under Dr. Nordheimer, the Professor of Hebrew, &c. were 
counted three times, because they attended him in three different 
languages. The students of the Episcopal Theological Seminary, 
it is believed, were also reckoned, because they attended Dr. Nord- 
heimer in Hebrew. It is believed, also, that the students of Pro- 
fessors of Modern Languages, taught in their own houses, and in 
diiferent parts of the city were added ; and more than all. Profes- 
sors Anthon, Whittingham and Turner, because receiving lessons 
from Dr. Nordheimer, wxre reckoned among the students of the 
University. Now if the design of the Chancellor were to state the 
number of individuals receiving instruction in every way and in 
every branch from Professors of the University, the number pos- 
sibly might be made out. But what an imposition, to put them 
down simply as students — thereby giving the impression that they 
are students under the common idea attached to the word — e. g. 
as we would say Yale College has 364 students. 

The Chancellor after stating that there are 153 under graduate 
students adds, " The others (211) were generally engaged in those 
higher branches of Science and Letters, for which it has been a 
special object of the University to provide instruction." And 
again (page 35) " many of those who are pursuing their studies 
in the higher departments of Science and Letters, are graduates 
from diiferent Literary Institutions in various parts of our coun- 
try." This is entirely a misstatement. The Faculty of Science 
and Letters had undertheir instruction no "graduates from different 
Literary Institutions," unless a small class pursuing the study of 
Civil Engineering with Professor Douglass, and the students of Dr. 
Nordheimer, as above given, be reckoned. In addition to this, if 
the Chancellor by any sort of estimate did arrive at the number 
211; the greater part of this number must have been composed of 
young gentlemen, who instead of being engaged in the study of 
" higher branches of Science and Letters" were simply engaged 
in the study of some modern language with a Professor of the 
University, in some place out of the University building. 

The Chancellor proceeds (page 32) " for which (i. e. for these 
higher branches of S-cience and Letters,) it has been a special 
object of the University to provide instructors" — and (page 35) 
9 



XVI APPENDIX. 

" Owing to the pressure of the times, and the difficulty of collect- 
ing old subscribers, (the nominal subscriptions ?) or of obtaining 
new, (How many did he obtain before the pressure ?) The Uni- 
versity has been constrained to reduce the salaries of its officers 
for the present. (The highest had been $ 1,800 for one year and ahalf 
and were put back again to $1,500.) The Institution is looking 
with much anxiety for aid from the State, in order to carry out 
and sustain its extensive and liberal plans." By making these 
representations of the exertions of the Institution to procure and 
sustain instructors in " higher branches of Science and Letters ;'» 
and by representing that *' owing to the pressure of the times the 
University had been constrained to reduce the salaries of its offi- 
cers for the present ;" and that, " it was looking with much anxiety 
for aid from the State, in order to carry out and sustain its exten- 
sive and liberal plans," he was enabled to procure the annuity of 
$6,000 for the payment of " Professors and Teachers." Upon 
his return he immediately took measures to divert the bounty of 
the State. The tuition fees for the last two years in contraven- 
tion of a resolution of the Council, expressly appropriating them 
to the payment of Professors had been otherwise disposed of, and 
the Professors in consequence reduced to a state of great dis- 
quietude and embarrassment — yet no sooner had the appro- 
priation of $6,000 per annum been granted by the State, than the 
Chancellor endeavored to obtain from the Finance Committee full 
$2000 of this sum to meet his private claims, although the whole 
amount was insufficient to cover the arrears of the Professors.* He 
next succeeded in obtaining the passage of a resolution in the Coun- 
cil annulling the former resolution in relation to the fees of tuition, 
and henceforth appropriating them to the general purposes of the 
Institution — and instead of carrying out the " extensive and lib- 
eral plans'' of the University according to his pledge, he strained 
eveiy nerve of intrigue, injustice and violence, to curtail them. 



* After he had failed to obtain this appropriation from the Fi- 
nance Committee, he went immediately to one of the Professors 
and made a merit to him of having voluntarily relinquished his 
claim for the benefit of the Professors. He repeated the same 
within a few days to other Professors. 



APPENDIX. XYU 

Seven Professors were ejected from the duties of their Professor- 
ships, and the University term October 1st, opened with 
Rev. J. M. MATHEWS, D. D. Chancellor. 
Rev. CYRUS MASON, Professor of the Evidences of Re- 
vealed Religion and Belles Lettres. 
B. F. JOSLIN, M. D. Professor of Natural Philosophy, Math- 
ematics, &c. 
Mr. JOHNSON, Assistant Professor of Languages, &;c. 
Two Assistant Teachers pro. tempore, and about forty students. 



D. 

(See page 6.^ 

The following extract from the Statutes and the statement sub- 
joined in parenthesis, is appended to the address of Gen. Tall- 
madge delivered May 20th, 1837, on occasion of the dedication 
of the University building : — 

" A Free Scholarship confers the right to have one student at 
a time educated at the University, during the continuance of such 
scholarship, free from all charges of tuition. 

Any contributor to the amount of one thousand dollars, may 
found and name a free scholarship during the time of his natural 
life. And any contributor to the amount of one thousand five 
hundred dollars, may found a free scholarship in perpetuity. 

Any number of contributors may unite to create a free scho- 
larship in perpetuity, on behalf of any Benevolent or Religious 
Society, to be held in the name of such society. 

Each contributor, or any number of contributors, to the amount 
of ten thousand dollars or more, shall have the privilege of found- 
ing and naming a Professorship ; subject, however, to the go- 
vernment of the University ; and of nominating, by themselves 
or their representatives, from time to time, during the term of 
twenty-one years, the Professor thereto, he being subject to ap- 
probation and removal as in other cases ; and the interest or in- 
come of the sum subscribed shall be appropriated to the salary 
of the Professor. 

(Agreeably to the above Statutes, one Professorship, viz. that 
of the Evidences of Revealed Religion, has been endowed by 
the contribution of fifteen thousand dollars, and forty-two free 
scholarships have been founded by contributors belonging to the 
Baptist, the Episcopal, Reformed Dutch, and Presbyterian de- 
nominations.)" 

The Free Scholarships here stated «to have been founded 
amount at least to $42,000. On the endowed Professorship of 



XVlll A P P E X D I T . 

the Evidences of Revealed Religion about $10,000 have been 
paid, which makes a total of $52,000. 

Now all the Scholarships as well as the endowment of the 
Professorship as far as paid in, have been invested in the build- 
ing. 

The actual cost of the University building and grounds, inclu- 
ding interest on money borrowed for its erection, the Finance 
Committee report to be $200,000" — The University has " also 
incurred a debt in addition to its original cost, of $57,000, ma- 
king in all $257,000, ''• The rents actually received from the 
whole building were less than $6000" — Hence "the amount re- 
ceived on the whole property of the University is not much above 
two per cent, on the amount thus expended." (See statement 
of a Shareholder, Appendix B.) 

The Scholarships therefore and the endowment of Prof. Mason 
yield " not much above two per cent." — Will this satisfy the Do- 
nors ? Will it pay the tuition fees of students placed on Scho- 
larships ? Will it pay the salary of the Professor 1 — $52,000 at 
six per cent, yield S3 120 per annum. At two per cent it yields 
$1040 per annum, which makes an annual loss of $2080. Pro- 
fessor Mason states that the Chancellor collected a large amount 
of the endowment from the Donors without authority and a part 
he obtained through Prof. Mason himself, assuring him that as 
he received the money from him and directly from the Donors 
he took care to have it adequately secured. — But he, (Professor 
Mason,) afterwards found that it had not been secured. The 
money was expended in finishing the Gothic chapel and he for 
some time had not even a receipt to shew for it either from the 
Chancellor or the Treasurer. 



E. 

fSee page 34.) 

§. " No trustee of a college or academy, shall act as a regent 
of the University, and no regent of the University shall act as 
trustee of any college or academy ; and if any such trustee shall 
be appointed a regent,, or a regent shall be appointed a trustee, 
he shall elect in which office he will serve, and give notice of 



APPENDIX. XIX 

such election to the authority by which he shall be appointed, 
within sixty days of the time of his appointment ; otherwise such 
appointment shall be void." — Revised Statutes, vol. i., p. 464, 2d 
ed. of 1829. 

John Lorimer Graham, Esq., was elected a Regent of the Uni- 
versity April 17th, 1835 ; he was elected a member of the Council 
of the University of this city Oct. 7th of the same year. Several 
able law^yers, who have been consulted on this subject, have 
unanimously pronounced his tenure of the latter office illegal and 
void. We subjoin the opinion of Daniel Lord, Jr., Esq. : 

" A gentleman who is regent of the University of the State, is 
afterwards elected a member of the Council of the University of 
the City of New-York. 

" He assumes to hold both offices, and has continued for seve- 
ral years to act as a Councillor of the University. He has re- 
signed neither office. 

" Is he entitled to act in both : and if not, which office is held 
legally ? 

OPINION. 

" By the Revised Statutes, no Regent of the University shall 
act as Trustee of any College or Academy ; and if appointed 
Trustee, he shall elect in which he will serve, and give notice to 
the authority by which he shall be appointed in sixty days, other- 
wise such appointment shall be void. — 1 R. S., 464, ^ 53. 

" The provision is positive : the reason is, the incompatibility 
of a body of supervisors, being in part composed of those whose 
concerns are to be inspected : a violation of this rule is a positive 
contravention of a rule of law, which cannot be cured by acquies- 
cence of either body, nor by any power short of that of the Legis- 
lature. The rule is not a rule for the benefit of colleges, and 
which they can waive : it is a rule of the policy of the State as 
to its literary government, and which cannot be waived. 

" Then is the Councillor of the University of the City a Trus- 
tee? 

" By comparing the powers and duties of the Trustees of Col- 
leges with those of Councillors of the University (compare 1 R. 
S. 460, ^ 36, with Acts of Sess. 54, ch. 176, § 283) they are iden- 
tical as far as relates to any government or management which 
is subject to the rule of the Regents of the University. 

" Is the University a college ? It cannot be doubted that it is. 
There is nothing, so far as this question is affected, in which it 
difTers. It is a collection of professors and students under a cor- 
porate government, aided by the corporate organization for literary 



XX APPENDIX. 

purposes, with the power of granting diplomas, having the usual 
piivileges of such testimonials, 

" It is therefore my opinion that the office of Councillor is in- 
compatible with that of Regent : that the former being the more 
recent appointment, is void : that the continuance in office of such 
Councillors i.s illegal, and that no acquiescence of the University 
of the City of New-York can absolve the illegality : and that it 
is the right of the Council to declare his seat vacant, and to fill 
the vacancy. DANIEL LORD, Jux." 

July 2Q\ 1838. 

When this matter was brought forward at a meeting of the 
Council, by W. B. Crosby, Esq., sustained by the above written 
opinion of a well-known lawyer in our city, the Chancellor and 
his friends, (who had then a majority,) refused even to hear the 
opinion, or suffer the question to be agitated — so that this gen- 
tleman holds his seat, and votes in the Council, in open violation 
of the laws of the State, 



F. 

(See page 39.) 

The retrenchment scheme reported by Dr. Mathews July 26th, 
contemplates, in the reorganization of the Professorships' the 
following reduction of expense : — 

1. The substitution of an Assistant Professor of Languages for 
one of the Professors of Languages, making a saving of the diffe- 
rence between the salary of the first (S1500,) and the salary of 
the last (8750,) $750 

2. The abolishment of the Professorship of Natural 
Philosophy and Astronomy, 1,000 

5. The abolishment of the Professorship of Geology 
and Mineralogy, 250 



Amount of retrenchment, $2,000 

The Professor of Geology had always expended the whole 

amount of his salary in adding to a private cabinet of minerals, 

which was placed in a room of the University for the use of the 

students, and which, together with the private cabinet of another 



APPENDIX. XXI 

Professor, formed the only collection of minerals for the use of 
the Institution. 

This was the retrenchment designed to meet the knmense 
pressure of a debt of $175,000 — and this was to be effected at 
the expense of the course of instruction — and in the very face 
of the Chancellor's report made to the Board of Regents a few 
months before, in which he remarks — " The University has been 
constrained to reduce the salaries of its officers for the present. 
The Institution is looking with much anxiety for aid from the State 
in order to carry out its extensive and liberal plans^ After the 
$6,000 from the State had been obtained for the payment of" Pro- 
fessors and Teachers," this sum, together with the tuition fees, 
was more than sufficient to pay the salaries of the Professors at 
the then existing rate, and might have enabled the Institution to 
restore the former rate, the reduction of which is so lamented 
by the Chancellor. — But instead of restoring this rate — instead 
of carrying out " its extensive and liberal plans," the bounty of the 
State is made the occasion of abolishing Professorships. 

The scheme of retrenchment brought forward in the report of 
July 26th, it appears was not finally adopted in all its parts. That 
scheme proposes to give $1500 each to three Professors — $1200 
to one — $1000 to one — and $750 to an Assistant Professor. — 
But in a statement made to the public, Oct. 1st. 1838, and signed 
by " James Tallmadge, President of the Council of the Universi- 
ty of the City of New- York," the following is given as the arrange- 
ment finally determined upon : — 

" The Council, therefore, determined on a reorganization which 
would require the labor of each Professor three hours during 
each day, thereby dispensing with the expense of one third of 
the Professors, and yet affording the same amount of tuition to 
the student. It was, in addition, determined, that the salary of 
each Professor should be fixed at $1000, with an allowance of 
seven dollars for each student taught by each Profsssor, in order 
that the Professors might have that additional incentive in advan- 
cing the interests of the University." 

Now let us examine this retrenchment to see if indeed it be a 
retrenchment. 

The old organization was as follows : — 



XXll APPENDIX. 

One Professor of Intellectual and INIoral Philosophy, at a sala- 
ry of $1,500 
One Professor of Greek Language and Literature, 1,500 
One Professor of Latin Language and Literature, 1,500 
One Professor of ^ylathematics, 1,500 
One Professor of Chemistry and Botany, 1,000 
One Professor of Natural Philosophy and Astronomy, 1,000 
One Professor of Geolog}' and ^Mineralogy, 250 
One Professor of Evidences of Revealed Religion 

and Belles Lettres, 1,200 



Total $9,450 

The new organization is as follows ; — 

One Professor of Languages, at a salary of $1,000 

One Professor of Mathematics and Natural Philosiphy, 1,000 
One Professor of Intellectual and ^lorsl Philosophy, 

and Logic, who shall also instruct in History, 1,000 

One Professor of Chemistry, Geology, }yIineralog}' 

and Botany, 1,000 

One Professor of the Evidences of Revealed Religion, 

and Belles Letrres, 1,000 

One Assistant Professor of Lano^uages, <tc. 750 



85,750 
In addition to this there is to be '• an allowance of seven dol- 
lars for each student taught by each Professor."' The income 
realized from this source will of course depend upon the number 
of students ; but as this arrangement is intended to act as an " ad- 
ditional incentive" to the Professors, ''in advancing the interests 
of the University," we are altogether within bounds if we calcu- 
late for the same number of students in the undergraduate course, 
which were collected under the old organization. N'ow the high- 
est number which ever belonged to this course, is that given by 
the Chancellor in his report to the Board of Regents, viz. 153, 
and the average number may be fairly put at 125. In the course 
of instruction all these students attend upon the above named Pro- 
fessors. Now General Tallmadge states also, that this re-orga- 
nization wiU " require the labor of each Professor three hours 



APPENDIX. XXlil 

during each day." From this we of course infer that each Pro- 
fessor will teach three classes. Upon an average therefore, each 
Professor will be engaged in teaching three fourths of 125 stu- 
dents, that is 93 students. Each Professor will therefore add to 
his income from this source $651 ; as there are six Professors 
this will amount to $3,906 

Add to this the amount of their salaries^ 5,750 



Total expense of new organization, 9,656 

Total expense of old organization, 9,450 

In favor of old organization, 206 

It is to be remarked here that in this statement we have reckon- 
ed the salary of the Assistant Professor of Languages at $750 
according to the report of July 26th. In Gen. Tallmadge's state- 
ment however, no distinction is drawn ; this will make a farther 
difference in favor of the old organization of $250. We have 
yielded too much also in taking the average number of students 
at 125. After making the boast that this new organization was de- 
signed to act as an " additional incentive in advancing the inter- 
ests of the Institution," we are justified in taking as the least 
number to represent the result of this " additional incentive," the 
highest number ever collected under the old organization, viz. 153, 
as the average number under the new ; and then the difference in 
favor of the old organization will be farther increased by $882. 
The comparison will then stand as follows : — 

Total expense of new organization, $10,788 

Total expense of old organization, 9,450 



Difference in favor of old organization, $1,338 

The above demonstrates that retrenchment was not the motive, 
but the pretext merely, for the re-organization.* 



* It is a remarkable fact which ought to be viewed in connec- 
tion with these measures, that the same pretext of retrenchment 
was resorted to by the Chancellor in his difficulties with the Pro- 
fessors in 1833. 
10 



XXIV APPENDIX. 

Retrencliment and economy had formed no part of Dr. Ma- 
thews' previous history, at least in relation to the University : and 
who will believe that by a remarkable coincidence they became 
a part of his history just when they answer the purpose of pre- 
venting the investigation asked by the Professors 1 



G. 

(See page 43.) 

As the card of the Professors, advertising the course of studies 
for the coming term, has been construed into disrespect to the 
Council, (a construction which never occurred to the Professors 
as possible till they were informed at once of their supposed 
offeuce and of the penalty by which it had been^ followed,) it is 
deemed proper to publish the opinion of Daniel Lord, Jun., and 
Hugh Maxwell, Esqrs., given orally at the time and subsequently 
drawn up in writing, which formed the basis of their action on 
that occasion. Our motive in publishing the advertisement was 
to answer the inquiries and to relieve the suspense and anxiety 
of the students. 

CASE. 

1831. April 12th. By the act incorporating the UnlTersity of 
the City of New-York, " the government and estate of the Uni- 
versity shall be conducted and managed by a Council composed 
of thirty-two shareholders and the Mayor and four members of 
the Common Council of the City of New- York for the time 
being, s. 2. Eleven members shall be a quorum for the transac- 
tion of business : but no real estate shall be conveyed, nor ap- 
pointments to office made (except to supply vacancies in the 
Council) other than by an affirmative vote of seventeen mem- 
bers, s. 7. The Council shall have power to appoint its own 
officers, and all the officers of the University, to establish ordi- 
nances and by-laws not contravening the laws or constitution of 
this State or of the United States, and to expel any of its mem- 
bers for a violation thereof, s. 13. 

Upon the organizing of the University under this Charter, cer- 
tain statutes were passed, printed in 1832, enacting among other 
things, 

Ch. 3. That the Council should hold one stated meeting in 
each month, the time and place to be fixed annually at their first 



APPENDIX. XXV 



meeting after the annual meeting of the shareholders, and not to 
be changed except by a vote of the Council. They may adjourn 
from day to day, and extra meetings may be called by the Presi- 
dent at his discretion, or at the request of any three members of 
the Council. 

Ch. 7. Professors and Assistant Professors in the University 
shall be appointed by the Council, subject to removal by the same 
authority. They may be nominated at one stated meeting and 
elected at a succeeding one, notice of the business to be transacted 
having been previously given. They shall be removed only by 
a vote of a majority of all the members of the Council at a meet- 
ing to be appointed for this expresspurpose, of which notice shall 
be given. 

The Council shall from time to time designate the branches 
that shall be taught, and prescribe general rules respecting the 
government, the terms of admission and the several courses of 
instruction, but the immediate superintendence and all the details 
of instruction and discipline shall be under the control of the 
Chancellor and Faculties respectively. 

Professorships were established forming a faculty of Science 
and Letters, having 

One Professor of Intellectual and Moral Philosophy. 
One Professor of Greek Language and Literature. 
One Professor of Latin Language and Literature. 
One Professor of Mathematics. 

One Professor of Natural Philosophy and Astronomy. 
One Professor of Chemistry and Botany. 
One Professor of Geology and Mineralogy. 
One^Professor of Evidences of Revealed Religion and Belles 

Lettres. 
And Professors with salaries were appointed in and before the 
year 1836. 

1838, August 30th. At an ordinary meeting of the board and 
without notice of any intention to remove any of the Professors, 
certain resolutions were passed. 

1. Resolved, That it is essential to the permanent welfare of 
the University, so to arrange the plan of instruction as to bring 
the ordinary expenses within the ordinary income of the Institu- 
tion. — 14 ayes, 5 noes. 

4. Resolved, That until the further order of this Council, the 
Faculty of Science and Letters for the instruction in the under- 
graduate studies shall consist of the following Professorships, viz: 

One Professor of Languages. 

One Professor of Mathematics and Natural Philosophy. 



XSn A P P E N D I S . 



One Professor of Intellectual and Moral Philosophy and Logic, 
who shall instruct in Histor\-. 

One Professor of the Evidences of Revealed Religion and 
Belles Lettres. 

One Professor of Chemistry', Geolog}', Mineralosf}', and Botany, 
and one Assistant Professor of Languages, who shall aid in the 
other studies of the Freshman year, as occasion mav require. 

6. Resolved, That all previous enactments or resolutions of 
Council, which may be inconsistent with the above arrangements, 
be, and hereby are rescinded. 

Lpon these resolutions it is asked whether the present Profes- 
sors are displaced from being Professors in the University] 

All the sections of the Charter and Statutes and all the resolu- 
tions appearing to bear on this question are above stated. 

OPINION. 

The first consideration is, what is the proper construction of 
the resolutions as to the displacement of Professors ? They are 
not on their face a displacing of Professors, but merely a combi- 
nation of branches, taught by the Professors in a difierent mode : 
a different arrangement of the same studies, by which the services 
of one gentleman or two, out of seven, may be released. It is 
not an abolishing of the old Professorships unless such old Pro- 
fessorships be inconsistent with the above new arrangements. — 
Now, what is the inconsistency ? There was, at the date of the 
resolutions, a Professor of Latin, and one of Greek. Now, there 
is a Professor of Languages and an Assistant Professor of Langua- 
ges. It is not apparent that such Professorships are inconsistent 
with the former, or in substitution of them, or that the same in- 
structions are not to be given by the same Professors. There is no 
inconsistency between the old and the new forms of instruction. 
So, of the Professorship of Moral Philosophy, the Professorship 
under the resolution is to comprehend the same branches, together 
with Logic and History, in no manner inconsistent with the Pro- 
fessorship as constituted. 

The professorships of Chemistry- is now also to embrace Geo- 
logy, Mineralogy, and Botany, branches not inconsistent with the 
professorship of Chemistry", as formerly constituted. 

The professorships of Mathematics and of Natm-al Philosophy 
and Astronomy, are now to be conducted by one professor ; this 
is not a destruction of both professorships, but a mere combining 
of other duties in one indi^-idual. 

The other professorship of Evidences of Revealed Religion is 
untouched. 



APPENDIX. XXVH 



Now, is there any inconsistency in the professors on the former 
plan continuing their instructions under the new plan? The 
branches which are united are not incompatible. That arrange- 
ment, which imposes the duties of the two professors of Mathe- 
matics and of Natural Philosophy upon one individual, and thus 
render it uncertain, which may be induced to retire, cannot de- 
stroy all the seven professorships and displace the professors by 
mere inference. Such cannot be the legal construction. 

And since the professorships are places for learned men, situa- 
tions of a character at least somewhat permanent for men whose 
conditions in life cannot be easily altered, and whose avocations 
exact that tranquility of mind which requires exemption from the 
fear of sudden change, it is not to be admitted or implied that it 
was the intention of the council of a literary body to remove 
them, and that in so indirect a manner. 

Besides, the statutes of the University require a meeting to be 
appointed for the express purpose of removing professors, of which 
notice should be given. To adopt resolutions intending to re- 
move six out of seven professors, without any such notice or ap- 
pointment, and by mere inference, is not to be supposed of men 
constituting the council of a college, and a construction of the 
resolutions to this effect is not to be admitted. 

The Council may find some embarrassment which of the Pro- 
fessors of Mathematics, and of Natural Philosophy, of Chemistry, 
and of Geology, &c., shall be induced to retire. But there 
is no such impossibility in this as to displace all. Ordinary jus- 
tice in compensation to them for the change, will relieve all em- 
barrassment. 

If, however, such wholesale removal should be deemed the 
necessary import of these resolutions, the question will arise, 
whether resolutions with this effect are regular and valid 1 

The professors are engaged at an annual salary : they are told 
the tenure of their office by the statute of the Institution. By 
these the professors are to be appointed on a nomination at one 
meeting and a A^ote at the next regular meeting. They cannot 
be removed except by a majority convened on notice, for the ex- 
press purpose, and by a majority of all the members of Council. 
These statutes are not repealed. Now measures cannot be 
adopted which by necessary inference would remove all the 
professors, without the notice and without the number of votes 
here required. If so, nothing would be more fluctuating and 
precarious than this mode of organization and government : 
for a majority of six out of eleven, (the quorum by the Charter) 
might at any meeting, by a single majority vote, abolish all the 
professorships, and turn out all the professors. This is so con- 
trary to the nature and existence of a literaxy body, so radically 



XrrUl APPENDIX 



inconsistent with a corporation for education, tliat it cannot be 
possible that it is a legal construction of its statutes and organi- 
zation. 

I think that the resolutions do not by any proper construction 
displace the professors ; and that resolutions having such an ef- 
fect cannot be passed, except in conformity ^vith the statutes of 
the UniversitT. 

DAN'L. LORD, Jrx. 

September, 18, 1838. 

I concur in the above opinion. 

H. MAXWELL. 



ERRATA. 

Page 4, line 8 from the bottom, for " including," read " exclu- 
sive of." 

Pag^ 4, line 6 from bottom, for " only $26,000," read " only 
about $29,000." 

Appendix A. — Page 5, line 20 from the top, for "1838," read 
" 1833." 



POPULAR AND ^ALXJABI^E REl 

'HEOi^'jrri'JAL AND SUNDAY SCHOOL EOt.K ; 

Brick Charcli Chapel^ XVew-'S'ork^ 



MBMOIR OP MRS. SARAH L. TAYLOR. 

vol. 12 mo. 
FRAGMFNTS FROM THE STUDY OF A PASTi^ By Rev. Gardiner 

Sprii:g, D. D. 
TALE OF THE HUGUENOTS; or Mmioii-aof a French Ren, 

ati In' i -uluciion. By Francts L. Hawks, D. D. 
AMfilliCAN EDUCATION. By Rtv. Benj. O- Peers, with an Ititiu 

Francs U Bavsks, D. D. 
MISSIONaHV CONVENTION AT JERUSALEM. By Rev. I 

Missionary to China. 
DHOOPiNG LILY. By Sliss Sherwood, with an engraving. '^ 
RKLIGION OF THE BIBLE. By Rev. Thomas H. Skuint. 

450 pages. 
CHR.TSTJANRT:TIRE3IENT; or Spiritual Exorcises of ibe Hra-^. By fb« 
author of CliriStiaii Experierice, Seco: d .Amoncan from the ei/^hth Lunu< n 
ediiioa. Illustrated wirb an elegant steel Fro aispieec. One vol. 
MEMOIRS OF REV. WM. NEVINS, D. D. of E'^aftiniore, Md. • 
type edition, revised and corrected. Illustrated 'svith a fii^Likeiie^ioii 
One vol. l2n-io. 
THE CAUSE AND CURE OF INFIDELITY. By the Rev. David IS 
of diincy, Illinois, late of IVI anon county, Missouri. Second ediiion, r 
and corrected. One vol. l2nio. 
SERMONS. By the Ja e 1<J2V. Wm. Nevias, D D. orEaltimor 

Likeness. One vol. l2mo. 
THOUGHTS ON POPERY. By Rev. V^m. Nenns, D. D. 

One vol. 18mo. 
PRACTICAL THOUGHTS. By the samt autnor. One vo 
HINTS TO PARF.VTS, on the Kehgiou? Education of Chiic, 

S|*r:ng, D. D. ^ • ' *' ,u(i.-jpieee. One vol. 8vo. 

THE LILY ! By the author of Little. Henry and his T 

ThirJ edition. \.., . .. .:,.^.. . -i/aspiece, and a ccjurnend.ttor'. i^-"'" ■ ' 
Wip. Patton. One vol. iBiuo. 
THV KINGDOM COME. By Rev. Thomas H. Skimei ' 
SACRA PR IV ATA : ti.e Private Mtditations and : LJishop W\. 

D.' One vol. 32.1.0. 
COUXSELS TO THE YOUNG. By Rev. A. Alexander, D. D. O;, 
AN APPE \L TO CHRISTIAN S, &e. By Rev. Wm. C. Brown!; 

vo). 18mo. 
BIEMOIR OF HANNAH HOBBIE. By the Rev. R. G. A- 

With a s eel Engraving and Frontispiece. One vol. ISrao. 
CHRIST, THE THEME OF THE HOME MISSIONARY 
Home Mission."). By Octavias Winslow, A. M. p-'^'n- --" 
Brooklyn. One vol. 18mo. 
PRVCTICAL RELIGION recon.mended and enfo . 
Epsibn to his Friend. By Rev. John Wo9dbhur \ vol. i^n.o. <:ioih. 



